Shataina ([info]dragonladyflame) wrote,
@ 2008-04-03 17:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I'm terribly sexist and I want you to tell me how
This post started when I was reviewing my last post and what I'd written at the end of a snippy rant about men who always think women are after them: "Okay yes, I know many men don't have this problem, including probably many guys who will read this; but the ones who do ruined it for the rest of you."

Totally unfair. I know it is. If a man said to me, "Okay yes, I know that many women aren't manipulative gold-digging prostitutes, but the ones who are ruined it for the rest of you," I'd be pretty upset.

And then my thoughts went to a conversation I was having with my friend Igor and Housemate Lisa the other night. Vaginal plastic surgery came up, and the ensuing conversation went something like this (I am liberally paraphrasing because I don't remember our exact words, and I apologize if anyone feels that they are misquoted):

Me: Argh, as if women needed something else to be insecure about!
Igor: That's not fair. Men are insecure too.
Me: Yeah, but only about penis size. Women are insecure about absolutely everything that has anything to do with body image. Including our vaginas, now, argh.
Igor: That's not fair. Men are insecure about body image too. Why don't you just say, "As if people needed something else to be insecure about"?
Lisa: Okay, it's reasonable to say that men are insecure as well, but the fact is that it manifests in different ways. Sure, men may be 25% of the population with eating disorders, but that still means that 75% of people who have eating disorders are women.

I guess that's sort of what a lot of these arguments come down to: "Who is the problem worse for?" Sure, everyone is insecure about body image, but it's obviously worse for women; so is there some way in which men aren't "allowed" to complain? No, of course not. But ....

The body image thing is a good example, because it's not only worse for women; women get less reassurance about it. One of the big morals of the story, for American culture, is that women have to be beautiful to succeed. Sure, a woman can also be smart or tough or perseverant, but if she's not also somewhat attractive, people aren't going to be real happy about the rest of it. You see relatively unattractive male politicians, media stars, etc. all the time, but female? When was the last time you saw an unattractive actress? Even when an actress is called to play an unattractive role, it's always an attractive actress with a fat suit or something (Kidman in "The Hours" is another good example). Hillary Clinton may be frequently lambasted for her unattractiveness, but she's not especially -- she's just not gorgeous. On the other hand, there are a fair number of male actors / politicians / whatever who are not especially attractive (sure, few are outright ugly, but let's just say that the bar's a lot lower for men).

Additionally, in terms of direct attractiveness body-image-wise, men get a whole lot of reassurance. Who hasn't heard the motto "Size doesn't matter"? When was the last time you saw or heard a woman talking about how a man had to meet certain physical requirements to be her mate, as opposed to social ones ("I just want a man with a sense of humour", etc -- Jessica Rabbit, anyone)? Compare that to the last time you heard or saw a man talking about how looks don't matter. Can you even think of any men you know who would say that looks don't matter? I can't. But I can think of lots of women who would say it.

There's something important there. Yes, a man can have appearance issues, but a man's faulty appearance is far less likely to cost him a job or a girlfriend. Appearance is more important for women. That's the problem. No one will argue (at least not after a minimum of thought) than men don't feel insecure about their appearance; and anyone who does is missing the point. The point is not that everyone isn't insecure, it's that women have more to feel insecure about. It's that women can actually be totally screwed by being ugly; for men, it's a much smaller hurdle to overcome. It's that a woman's "total value" is far more based on her attractiveness.

But this is a tangent. I started with catching myself in a sexist remark. And I guess that's where I have to re-start: I hate the sexism I see in myself. I hate the fact that I'm actually more likely to stereotype about "men" than many of the men I know are to stereotype about "women". How did this happen to me? I catch it every once in a while, but I feel like I dismiss and forget the lesson soon after I notice it. Why?

Well, it's hard not to be resentful of the "powerful group" when you're an "oppressed group". Maybe that resentment partly comes out in a tendency to try and do what they're doing "right back at them". So men will stereotype me as weak, dumb, high-maintenance, etc.? Fine, then I'll stereotype them. So maybe getting past the rage is step one. Easier said than done.

Maybe it's partly that there are very few cultural messages about not stereotyping men. In America, we're frequently told about how wrong it is to stereotype women or be misogynist, but there aren't very many commentators who talk about not stereotyping men. (One problem may be that men who are willing to talk about this tend be be misogynist assholes -- you will notice this on any Internet forum -- which means that they automatically lose the argument; their words are automatically discounted.) I want a commentator, a cultural movement, that starts with the statement: "Yes, women have it much worse," and goes on to say: "But male stereotypes suck too." I want a cultural movement that integrates both sides of gender studies -- doesn't just talk about "women's studies" or whatever you would call men's studies.

Feminist women often talk about "men" in disparaging, we're-all-women-here tones. Even the most feminist woman can easily switch from a conversation about how she feels like her relationship expresses certain gender stereotypes, to sighing about how a man will fuck anything that walks. I want to overcome that. I want to be someone who can discuss how much current gender dynamics suck without moving from there to an assumption than all men long for nothing but sleeping with blonde Playboy bunnies.

Maybe another problem is that more men, I think, participate thoughtlessly in their own problematic stereotypes than women do. I mean, it sucks that I assume that all men want to bang blonde Playboy bunnies more than they want a serious relationship with an intelligent woman. But on the other hand, how many men would look at a big Playboy bunny poster and not say, "That's hot; I'd totally do her"? (Who aren't gay?)

But is it a stereotyped group's responsibility to actively reject all stereotypes? From here I'd get into complicated territory about whether women should never get plastic surgery, whether women should allow men to pay for dinner, etc. I'll skip that line of thought. I guess the bottom line is that I feel that I'm sexist and it bothers me. I'll end this somewhat incoherent diatribe with a

Sudden Poll: Men: What stereotypes do you feel unfairly pigeonhole you, as a man?
Women: What kind of stereotyping anti-male moments have you caught yourself in?


(Post a new comment)

The two that get me are:
[info]jadasc
2008-04-03 10:55 pm UTC (link)
* That I've got this craving/loathing relationship to women and sex.
* That my beliefs, opinions and preferences are, and should remain, fixed and immutable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: The two that get me are:
[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 01:02 am UTC (link)
* That my beliefs, opinions and preferences are, and should remain, fixed and immutable.

That's a male stereotype? Maybe I am just clueless.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The two that get me are:
[info]jadasc
2008-04-04 01:42 am UTC (link)
Yeah. You know that old saw that "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind?" The other side of that is that "real men don't let their minds be changed."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The two that get me are:
[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 03:55 am UTC (link)
OK. I'll just have to take your word for it. I guess I just tend to hang with people who would feel ridiculous making any assertions about what "real men" do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The two that get me are:
[info]jadasc
2008-04-04 11:23 am UTC (link)
Not "people making assertions" as much as "stereotypes I see evidence of everywhere that lead people to guess wrong about what I'm like." No one would state it that baldly, but part of the insidious nature of stereotyping is that no one ever has to say it at all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fleurs_du_mal
2008-04-03 11:02 pm UTC (link)
I'm really curious as to what started the whole vaginal plastic surgery thing, which I haven't even heard of before. I have the same frustrations with regard to recognizing my own occasional sexist lapses (which are related to behavioral standards and not physical appearance), but I do have to agree that there is a hell of a lot more pressure on women to attain impossible beauty standards in general. Especially in movies and television.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jadasc
2008-04-03 11:15 pm UTC (link)
As I understand it, it's linked to the growing popularity of hardcore porn in the mainstream, leading to yet another standard people feel compelled to meet.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]miketodd13
2008-04-03 11:33 pm UTC (link)
This sounds right. I believe anal bleaching has also become popular due to the proliferation of the porn industry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jadasc
2008-04-03 11:55 pm UTC (link)
My gorge rises at the combination of the words "anal bleaching" and "popular," but I see your point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 01:01 am UTC (link)
I don't even have to get as far as "popular" for the gorge rising. Anal bleaching is pretty bizarre and inexplicable. Things like breast implants at least affect body parts that people notice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 12:16 am UTC (link)
It seems to me that this answer only goes half way because we then must ask why the hardcore porn industry has embraced vaginal plastic surgery (which I assume from your response is the case).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jadasc
2008-04-04 12:43 am UTC (link)
Other way around: women seek to please their lovers by making their bodies look like the ones in the movies.

Edited at 2008-04-04 12:47 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 12:54 am UTC (link)
Wait, other way around from what? I agree with your theory, I just think that it naturally leads to the question of why porn presents an ideal so far removed from reality.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 12:58 am UTC (link)
I think he was suggesting that porn stars are simply selected for having attractive vulvas (whatever the hell that means), rather than needing surgery for them.

But your question is certainly equally valid for other things which are clearly choices on the part of porn industry, probably most notably breast implants and shaving pubic hair (my own pet peeve).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 01:28 am UTC (link)
My understanding is that vaginal plastic surgery has been around for decades but was primarily limited to women in the sex industry until relatively recently. That suggests that porn stars have and do modify their genitals to conform to a certain image. The "attractiveness" of vulvas in porn seems to have acquired a very limited definition that is so restricted that most/many women require surgery in order to achieve it. And that seems really rather odd to me.

But then I think most porn is odd. Wouldn't it seem more natural for mainstream porn to celebrate natural bodies? Instead, to be attracted to natural bodies is seen as a fetish and being attracted to shaved and surgically altered bodies is considered normal. How did that happen? (Is it because you can make lots of money doing surgeries and selling bikini wax? Is it because people equate body modification with body improvement?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]jadasc
2008-04-04 01:45 am UTC (link)
It's not that porn stars are getting plastic surgery, although they might be. It's that the marketplace selects for a certain aesthetic -- small, thin, pink labia, for example -- and then portrays that as the norm. The viewing audience then takes this impression back with them: if my body doesn't look like this, I'm abnormal and unattractive and no one will want me. I will therefore change myself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 01:53 am UTC (link)
But is the marketplace really the driving factor here? I'm hesitant to make such an assumption. And even if the marketplace is the driving factor we can ask what drives the marketplace. These preferences aren't biologically built in. They must come from somewhere.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jadasc
2008-04-04 01:59 am UTC (link)
I'm less hesitant. :) I'm willing to say that the origins of these trends in porn come from the preferences expressed through the desires of the people who buy it. Interest in large breasts and younger-looking women was evident before implants and full-body waxing were promoted to exploit those desires.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 03:11 am UTC (link)
The U.S. automobile industry, so the story goes, once operated with the attitude that U.S. cars are and should be big, clunky and stylish because Americans care more about style and status than performance; it all seemed very reasonable until the Japanese offered better performing models. The point being that an industry's perception of its customers' desires is often inaccurate.

Another story. Charles Forster began the mechanized manufacture of toothpicks in Boston but found there was little market for this new product. So he created a market for it. Through a variety of schemes he provided the illusion of demand and so induced stores and restaurants to carry his product. Customers were thus exposed the product and believed it to be popular and began using them themselves. The market became very real, but it was constructed from an illusion. The point being that preferences of the marketplace are often formed or even created artificially.

And what about products like spam? Spam was originally produced as a substitute for fresh meat but it has gained a following of those who, once exposed to it, grew to like it. Our tendency to like what has become familiar makes it very difficult to sort this kind of thing out.

The marketplace undoubtedly plays a tremendous role in the continuation of these trends within porn, but I suspect that if there was and had been a simple and direct correlation between what men want and what we see in porn than the industry would look pretty different than it does.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 05:42 am UTC (link)
yeah, on the other hand, people generally project what they find appealing onto other people. I am pretty continually shocked at how bad (and not at all erotic) most porn is (I once had a girlfriend who was convinced that it would be hot if we watched some porn together. Even though we found one that was a lot more reasonable than most, we still ended up amused rather than turned on), but I think you aren't giving capitalism enough credit. I mean, there is porn out there with a more natural vibe, and it's not as though customers are flocking to it in such numbers that the silcone enhanced stuff has gone out of business.

Though, I think the feedback loop point is important. I'm sure part of mainstream porn's appeal too lots of guys comes down to the fact that they've been getting off on it for years. This is why we should regulate porn like athletics, and ban artificial enhancement. Porn should be training people to get off on actual sex, rather than sex they probably couldn't have even if they did look like porn stars.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 10:32 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. I'm not wild about regulating porn for this kind of thing. In my mind a preference for fake tits is a fetish not unlike a preference for extreme piercings, tattoos, or BDSM. I'm against banning any of these things, and I doubt such regulation would be effective anyways. I do, however, wish that more people would think critically about porn and what effect it may have, and I don't think that's happening on a large scale.

It can be a tricky thing. I think it's natural for people to expect the sex in porn to be better than sex in real life. It makes sense that they seek out porn where they find the actors to be unusually attractive. And it is only logical that people seek out porn that caters to their personal fetishes. That's what porn is about. But how far should this go? I suspect that going too far in trying to find an ideal fantasy in porn would be unhealthy. But even if we allow for such extreme idealization, shouldn't we expect a diversity of ideal bodies? Wouldn't we expect the range of ideal bodies to form a bell curve with a fairly normal, unaltered body at the center? I suspect that a lopsided distribution, like that found in mainstream porn, is harmful both to those who watch and to those who will inevitably be compared to it.

I think I agree with you about the problem, but not the solution. But then I don't really have a solution, because I know it is unrealistic to expect men to all come to this conclusion on their own.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-03 11:41 pm UTC (link)
What stereotypes unfairly pigeonhole me? I lost track long ago. I'm more or less used to falling out side of the gross generalizations made about men, especially when they come to sexuality.

What is most unfair, and what I most dislike, is when these stereotypes are used to judge me. I don't like being told, "You wouldn't understand, it's a girl thing." I don't like it when people assume that I like the Ditty Bops because I think "lesbians are hot." I don't like when I comment that I like a sweater and someone responds, "Yeah right, you just like the girl in it."

Other times stereotypes lead people to jump to conclusions, but without judging. This isn't so bad, and can even be amusing at times. People are often surprised to learn that I knit, but I've never felt judged by the stereotype that says I don't. Similarly some people might assume I like sports just because I'm a guy. They would be wrong, but I don't feel insulted by the assumption. These types of stereotypes are still problematic, but significantly less so than the first kind.

(Reply to this)


[info]miketodd13
2008-04-03 11:50 pm UTC (link)
This one is going to be hard to explain, because I'm not even sure I have it worked out in my head. The only real stereotype that I think has pigeonholed me is what you discuss -- the belief that men stereotype women. While I do somewhat stereotype everyone that I don't know (which I think is natural), I'm always on the lookout for how people break stereotypes, moreso than how they fit them. But on several occasions, I feel that females I've known acted as if I only thought a certain thing about them because that was the stereotype. For example, one ex-girlfriend was a drama queen, but whenever I pointed out that she was doing something that was going to create drama, she blew it off as me having stereotyped her. That's how it seemed to me, anyway -- it's always possible that I didn't articulate myself well, or came off as confrontational (though I always tried very hard not to be, in those circumstances).

Also, come to think of it, many of my past girlfriends seemed to think that I wanted to cheat on them. I've cheated once in my life -- an online feaux-relationship 8 years ago, though I never physically met the other person* (to this day, I'm not entirely convinced it was actually a female) -- and it made me feel so horrible that I will never, ever do it again. But I feel like because other men have cheated on women I've been with, many have feeling that "men are cheating bastards, and you need to keep them on a short leash." But admittedly, that might just be because of their own experiences, and not necessarily a stereotype of men in general.


* I do realize that most women consider emotional cheating to be at least as egregious as physical cheating, and I'm not saying that it's not. Simply that I was guilty of one, but not both.

(Reply to this)


[info]iamfiction
2008-04-04 12:34 am UTC (link)
Maybe I'm totally off by myself in left field on this one, but I just think in terms of "people."

Is gender-blindness an ideal cliche?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 01:07 am UTC (link)
no, it's a joke. see Colbert, Stephen T.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 12:55 am UTC (link)
I, for one, don't really recall a time when I've found stereotypes about men to be really problematic for me. Maybe I'm just clueless, or maybe those stereotypes just apply to me more (unlike [info]basseykay, I would definitely be looking at the girl, not the sweater, though I doubt I would say anything about either), or maybe being a mathematician raises its own conflicting (and more annoying) stereotypes. The main effect of stereotypes about men that I've found is women applying a pretty low standard to men, which is typically pretty easy to beat. It's a bit like being an American in Europe since the Iraq war: the reputation is so bad that it's really easy to wriggle out from under it with a few visible tags of not being "one of those guys" (liberal politics, not liking sports, not playing video games all the time, etc.).

(Reply to this)


[info]burtlo
2008-04-04 01:29 am UTC (link)
That I have to do all the penetrating. :P

Honestly, I think it's mostly been bothered by stereotypes based on other tags. Perhaps the one off comments generalizations of "all men suck" based on the actions of one man. It was this feminine rallying cry.

When I was I had to do boy-related chores. Which was cleaning up the yard and carrying bundles of sticks ... which brings me to:

Good dancer/dresser = Gay: For quite some time it was hard to believe that I could both dance and make fashion choices without being considered gay. This has gotten tremendously better based on changes I've made and the changes in society

Military = Idiot: People are constantly surprised I was in the military, though it's usually to my benefit that could be likened towards jtwonderdog's example of being a American in Europe.

Tux + Tails = Magician: Though I've now played to that one and learned a few card tricks.

(Reply to this)


[info]heliograph
2008-04-04 01:52 am UTC (link)
But on the other hand, how many men would look at a big Playboy bunny poster and not say, "That's hot; I'd totally do her"? (Who aren't gay?)

Or worried about cooties? Part of my calculations always included that someone who I didn't really know who was eager for casual sex probably didn't confine that to me, which means the odds of cooties were extremely high.

But I think your stereotype(s) of men are accurate for the majority. If stereotypes didn't have an element of truth they wouldn't exist. As long as you recognize that the stereotypes don't necessarily apply to individuals you're OK. But you knew that already.

So feel guilt free about continuing to stereotype! Generalization keeps you from getting bogged down in details, which you only really need to do if the situation warrants it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 05:14 am UTC (link)
Or worried about cooties? Part of my calculations always included that someone who I didn't really know who was eager for casual sex probably didn't confine that to me, which means the odds of cooties were extremely high.

Um, not worrying about that is part of the point of looking at a poster (or whatever other medium) as opposed to having sex. I mean, I agree with you when it comes to actual sex acts, but saying "I'd totally do her" about a woman on a poster and a woman in a bar are rather different things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]heliograph
2008-04-04 01:02 pm UTC (link)
but saying "I'd totally do her" about a woman on a poster and a woman in a bar are rather different things.

Not for me! "Cooties!" was the first thing I thought of when she mentioned her example.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 01:57 am UTC (link)
Oh, and while I know that my word here is statistically insignificant, I'd just like to say that the phrase "I'd totally do her" and all its equivalents are completely absent from my vocabulary and my mindset.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jtwonderdog
2008-04-04 05:30 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure what this really means. I feel like "I'd totally do her" is just a somewhat crude way of saying "that girl is attractive," which is a thought I assumed all people attracted to girls had pretty regularly. I mean, what is attraction if not a vague, not particularly thought-through desire to have have sex with someone? I get the sense that some of the commenters here are interpreting that too literally.

Are you just saying you wouldn't express it like that?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 11:51 am UTC (link)
Yes and no. I certainly am aware of the attractiveness of some girls, sometimes overwhelmingly so. However not only would I not express that as "I'd totally do her" I think it is a mistake to regard "I'd totally do her" as a synonym for "I find her attractive". If you find someone attractive why say so in more straight forward terms?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 07:20 pm UTC (link)
I want to expand on my last comment. The primary reason I object to "I'd totally do her" is that, when said in the above context, it suggests, even if it is not meant literally, that a) I'm constantly seeking out the chance to have sex, and b) that the appearance of a potential partner is of such overriding importance that I would want to have sex with some women based upon their appearance alone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]hydrobromic
2008-04-04 04:13 am UTC (link)
I stereotype against the fucking arrogant math boys in my classes. A few of them are, genuinely, assholes. But I end up interpreting any sign of boredom (or even, sometimes, confidence) in males as malicious arrogance. I don't judge the math ladies in this manner (possibly because they don't behave this way, but possibly due to sexism).

On the other hand, I often think "I'd totally do her" in response to a hot person/image. Am I alone here, ladies?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]anotherthink
2008-04-04 03:02 pm UTC (link)
I often think "I'd totally do her" in response to a hot person/image. Am I alone here, ladies?
nope :)

Also I agree with the above posters who consider "I'd totally do her" to be in the figurative sense; a significant sample of guys I know would probably say that, meaning that she's hot, but wouldn't literally "do her", both because of cooties issues as raised above and because they are in serious relationships with intelligent women.
Though, I can't definitively say that their preference is for serious relationships over banging Playboy bunnies, since I am guessing they have never had the opportunity to do the latter :).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-04 05:06 pm UTC (link)
"how many men would look at a big Playboy bunny poster and not say, "That's hot; I'd totally do her"? (Who aren't gay?)" - That one bugs me quite a bit. The fact that if you aren't trying to get with every attractive woman around you or, even worse, don't have sex or hook up with a woman who want to get with you, means you are gay. In fact, I've spoken to a few guys who feel a)guilty that this stereotype is not true for them, and b)the need to live up to it in spite of not wanting casual sex.

To clarify that last bit: was talking to a guy recently who was having a problem with relationships. To wit - when he found himself genuinely attracted to a woman on a level beyond physical he wanted to get to know them first. By the time he tried to make a move they would say he missed his chance. The kid's not an ass or unattractive and when he just makes a move on someone it is not met with that response. So he came to the conclusion that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the only way for a guy to get with somebody who he is attracted to on many levels is to make moves on every attractive girl soon after meeting her and hope that she ends up still being attractive when he gets to know her (i.e. is interesting, intelligent, etc.).

-Nik

(Reply to this)


[info]spareme
2008-04-04 07:50 pm UTC (link)
the thing is... maybe the research isn't being done on the things that men are "insecure" about, or maybe "insecurity" is not the primary byproduct of fucked up gender relations for men... things like mandated responsibility or dominance... the things that effect women effect them in a man's world, and the things that effect men effect them in a man's world... it comes down to freedom i think, ultimately, for people to throw off performative gender roles and participate more fully in their human roles. the closer we get to freedom-world and away from patriarchal world (which is the nonfreedom world we live in now), the more apparent the issues that males carry with them will become. perhaps.

(Reply to this)


[info]agnoster
2008-04-04 08:01 pm UTC (link)
"how many men would look at a big Playboy bunny poster and not say, "That's hot; I'd totally do her"? (Who aren't gay?)"

That would be one of the stereotypes I hate - the fact that people seem to expect us to judge women primarily on outward appearance. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy?

(Reply to this)

This is what I meant to post before I got distracted by all that porn talk.
[info]basseykay
2008-04-04 10:47 pm UTC (link)
By the way, I'm afraid I'm one of those men who has shown a tendency to mistake friendliness for romantic interest. Unlike the men in your examples I am less likely to jump to such conclusions when I am in a relationship, but when I am single I misread normal friendliness with annoying frequency. This is unfortunate.

Overall though, isn't it more a problem for me than for the girl? As often as not the girl will never even find out, and when she does the conversation that results will likely be an awkward one, but no harm is done. In fact, I'll even venture to say that such conversations are sometimes a positive experience for both parties. Two of my good friends are women with whom I have had such conversations, in one case where I had fallen for the girl, in the other case where the girl had fallen for me.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-05 07:32 am UTC (link)
I didn't know you could disable comments.

(Reply to this)

Just remembered another one...
[info]miketodd13
2008-04-05 07:44 am UTC (link)
Another stereotype that has worked to my detriment before is that men always want sex. There have been times when I wasn't "in the mood," and my significant other assumed it was therefore because she wasn't attractive to me, since of course I must want sex always, because I am a man.

(Reply to this)


[info]ejgrgunner
2008-04-06 04:10 am UTC (link)
I guess that's sort of what a lot of these arguments come down to: "Who is the problem worse for?" Sure, everyone is insecure about body image, but it's obviously worse for women; so is there some way in which men aren't "allowed" to complain? No, of course not. But ....

Here's the thing that bothers me: Why does it have to come down to better/worse? Why do we need to compare the severity of suffering between people? That act in and of itself is an affront and somewhat inhumane. It creates a zero-sum dynamic that needn't apply.

Women with body-image anxieties suffer and I empathize. Men with body-image issues suffer and I sympathize, not because I think that they have it better/worse/as bad as women but simply because I can more readily share that perspective. Not that I don't want to understand women's body-image problems as well as men's, but I simply have accumulated a great deal of experience that informs so much more quickly and easily my understanding of a man's problem.

We've all got it bad. Day in, day out, an indifferent universe finds ways to make each of us feel small, neglected, alone. There are women with body iamge-issues, men who are falling apart because they feel but aren't allowed to express it, and a whole host of both that are being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, or who they fall in love with. Some problems, I can understand more easily than others. I "get" father issues more easily than I know what it's like to suffer racism. I can more quickly understand self-mutilation than obsession-compulsion.

And while each case is worthy of sympathy/support/help/action, I wouldn't rank or prioritize them based on comparative levels of injustice/pain. Barack Obama recently said of working class white Americans: "They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense." I feel that too often that empathy/commiseration/recognition of societal failings gets the same treatment as opportunity - just because I appreciate that men have insecurities about their bodies doesn't mean I'm any less capable of appreciating that women have insecurities about their bodies too.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-06 12:09 pm UTC (link)
Yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Morpheus
(Anonymous)
2008-04-06 05:18 pm UTC (link)
Yes also. I love this. "I've got it worse" turns into a game, and nobody likes to lose a game. Subtly, when you take pride in your pain, you work toward it with every failure. Primarily, we have to be prepared to improve the problems that we're complaining about. From a business/progress standpoint, the best way to do that is to feel bad and responsible for everything that affects us, because it's up to us, individually and as a team, to fix it. I think that it would be amazing if men and women stopped complaining about each other and suddenly felt so guilty about the very fact that there are problems, that we only want to talk about them when there is either a cultural advancement/milestone, or a personal instance of success. If change for the better is the goal, we should either punish or ignore negativity, not squint to find it just so that we can feel proud and justified because we expected it to be there, only moments before we become ineffectually angry at something we obviously rely upon to view ourselves favorably.

Of course, that's just philosophy. I don't think that stereotyping, irrational hatred, or gender bias are going anywhere anytime soon. They're too popular.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dragonladyflame
2008-04-11 08:51 pm UTC (link)
ARGH I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT SOMEONE WOULD WRITE THIS AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH I THOUGHT IT WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE POINT. Fuck, why the hell do I even try to get any points across ever? ARGH.

sorry ... I'm going to go calm down and then respond to this later when I'm not grumpy, I guess.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]basseykay
2008-04-11 11:11 pm UTC (link)
I look forward to seeing you response. I don't mean that to sound provocative—I know that you are going to have an interesting and well thought out perspective on this and will see much that I have overlooked. You always do :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…