I’m a bit sleepy, here in my office early on a Thursday morning. I had a pre-dawn breakfast with my friend Steve, and the three cups of coffee I consumed are helping me to join the living. I’ve got three lectures today: a discussion, based on this book by Lynn Phillips, of the competing "love hurts" and "love conquers all" discourses in my women’s studies class at 8:50AM; a lecture on Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age at 10:25; and Napoleon’s Russian campaign and eventual downfall at 1:00PM. And I still have many, many midterms to grade.
I’ve been reading through the 90+ comments below Monday’s post on Tough Bunnies. The thread moved on to issues of dress and the visual nature of men’s sexuality, and a couple of comments caught my attention.
Gonzman writes: There is no right not to be looked at – or a right not to be ignored. There is no right not to be admired – or a right not to inspire repulsion.
Well, he’s right. But I’m not nearly as concerned with "rights" as I am with ethics and responsibility. Many of the men and women commenting in the thread raise the point that women send signals to men with the way that they dress; some (particularly the MRAs) point out that women ought not to be surprised by the fact that men will make certain judgments about them based upon their clothing choices.
But while there is no right not to be looked at, I’m not sure that means that it is always right to look! I’ve made it very clear that as a man doing pro-feminist work, my primary concern is on helping men to transform their thinking and their behavior. This does not mean that I think that women are blameless victims, misunderstood angels, exploited and helpless little girls. I’m perfectly aware that many women do use their sexuality quite consciously, often with an intense desire for attention and validation. I’ve written about women and clothing before, and invite readers who have not done so to check out my post on the subject "Sisterhood is Easier in Winter." I do not absolve all girls and women from responsibility, not by any means.
But because my concern is with boys and men, I’m adamant about insisting that the counterpart of "there is no right not to be looked at" must be "it is not always right to look." I’m tired of the right-wing rhetoric in praise of female modesty and conservative dress, not because I am an enemy of modesty but because I loathe the perpetuating of the myth of male weakness that undergirds the discussion! As a man, particularly as a pro-feminist Christian man of faith, I reject the implication that I am visually helpless before a bare midriff or a miniskirt. The assumption that if girls and women wear revealing clothes, they deserve the penetrating gazes they receive is rooted in a notion that male sexuality is simply too powerful a force to be subject to self-discipline. Modesty theory assumes male vulnerability and fragility, and thus makes women into their brothers’ keepers, protecting us from ourselves by dressing demurely.
But while modest dress is perhaps desirable, Scripture is very clear that male lust is something men must be expected to control. I argue that we men are called, like Job, to make a covenant with our eyes not to "look lustfully" at girls and women. That responsibility to avert our gaze is not abrogated when a woman wears revealing clothing. Our responsibility to avert our gaze is not contingent upon whether or not the woman in question wants to be looked at; the responsibility not to objectify is ours regardless of whether or not we are being invited to gaze and lust.
I realize I’m taking an unpopular position. Secular feminists are usually uncomfortable with my hostility to lust. Mythago suggests that I’m taking the position that "lust is some kind of evil cancer whose mere touch destroys any aesthetic or intellectual value a thing may have." I’ll admit that I do take Matthew 5:27-28 very seriously. I don’t think we can lust for someone without consequences for ourselves and for those around us. Lust is never truly idle, I believe — it is the desire to appropriate, if only in fantasy, something for ourselves that is not ours to have. Lust is distinct from sexual desire for one’s partner or spouse, precisely because with one’s partner, that desire is a reflection of a commitment that already exists. Though we are all prone to lust as part of our human nature, that does not mean that we cannot, through effort and prayer and mutual support, channel our visual sexuality entirely towards our primary relationship. I believe it can be accomplished without shame and guilt.
Of course, I lose most right-wing social conservatives by suggesting that the primary onus ought to lie with the one who is lusting, not with the one who is the object of lust. While I am not encouraging immodest dress, ultimately the struggle against objectification can’t hinge on what other folks are wearing. To put it in economic terms, I’m not interested in cutting off the supply of visually stimulating bodies and images, I’m interested only in addressing the demand. I’m anti-porn, as my readers know — but I have no interest in lifting a finger towards the goal of getting laws passed to ban porn. My hatred of porn rests comfortably with my zealous belief that porn is protected by the First Amendment. And while I don’t think that low-riding jeans with high-riding thongs is a particularly enlightened fashion choice, I’m not interested in expending any energy railing against contemporary dress. To paraphrase Paul, all things ought to be legal, but that doesn’t give us the right to do them: "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. Whether the woman in front of me is in a thong or a burka, what I do with my eyes and my thoughts is all on me, 100%.
Look, I’m aware that women and girls lust too. I’m not suggesting that we can create a society where none of us ever gazes at another person with a fleeting sensation of desire. But lust is about more than passing desire, lust is a conscious choice to not only look for a moment, but to continue to look. It’s the difference between an "appreciative glance" and a "penetrating gaze." I don’t think it’s a tortuous and artificial distinction, either. I think it’s straightforward and practical, and with discipline, easily applied. And let me be clear that my goal is not to create a de-sexualized, guilt-ridden society! My goal is a world where men and boys, women and girls, interact with each other as loving members of the human community, with a sense of responsibility for each other and a commitment to love and protect each other. I want a world where young women can feel validated and seen, not because of their physical desirability but because of their essential worth as human beings.
So I’m sure I’ve alienated secular feminists with my hostility to lust, MRAs with my insistence that men hold themselves accountable, and social conservatives with my conviction that overcoming lust is only about addressing demand, and not at all about supply.
Anyone I haven’t annoyed?
Pro-lust secular feminist here. I am not annoyed at all. Where I differ from your perspective, I think, is that I believe it is possible to harbor purely private thoughts that do not effect one’s actions. I focus on disciplining my actions rather than my thoughts. I may think of someone lustfully but I would never act in such a way that would imply to the object of my lust that I have a right to him in some way. Likewise, I don’t care if some co-worker privately thinks that I’m hot as long as he doesn’t look me up and down during a business meeting. In other words, I don’t mind the lust but I do mind the disrespectful conduct.
Another not-offended one. For me, the gaze or the attraction is not the issue, it is when the gaze becomes predatory that it becomes problematic. As a lesbian, I know which women I find visually appealing and I know when the line of lust is crossed. As a woman, I know when men find me attractive, when they find my clothing attractive, and when they start acting in a predatory manner (usually not the same guys).
Yesterday on campus I was catching the bus home from work. A middle-aged guy was lounging near the bus-stop and mentioned to the traffic monitors that he was (heh-heh) just checking out the “eye-candy”. I told him, as I walked by, to “fuck off.” Why? Because I don’t really care how a man debases women in his mind, but once he acts on it or speaks about it in public, he is open to public criticism. Women (and most men) are intimidated by someone staring at them. Just think how offended both men and women would be if I, an open 38-year-old lesbian, stood by the bus-stop, leering at young women and calling them (heh-heh) “eye-candy”. Most people would find my actions abnormal, if not slightly insane.
I personally find lust to be more on the creative end of the spectrum of human emotions, rather on the immoral or wrong. Lust does not directly lead to improper action or even sex. Lust can, and has, lead to art, music, war, and peace. Lust, if viewed in a patriarchal continuum of sex, ownership, exclusivity (emotional, not sexual), dominance, and moral propriety, becomes problematic and has only a few, mostly inappropriate, outlets.
Is the issue averting the gaze? Not if through that problematic gaze is self-awareness and god-awareness strengthened. Christ would teach us that to live in Christian community and in community with the world, we don’t need ownership, exclusivity, dominance, or even moral propriety. What we do need is a love for others as for ourselves and a belief that all human emotions and actions are worthy of redemption. Averting the gaze avoids the issue and leaves unexamined our societal tendancies to objectify and dominate.
… at least that’s my $.02
The Happy Femininst makes a good point, that being responsibility for ones actions. I happen to agree with her on this regard.
And once Hugo, yes, your predictability re. men’s accountability and inconsistencies vis-a-vis women’s accountability shine through.
A week or so ago you posted on the new HPV vaccine “One of the most important things we in the pro-feminist movement try to do is teach young men to take an interest in, and to some degree, a responsibility for, the health of their current or future sexual partners.” and “Those vital lessons might be easier to teach if young men were already familiar with doing something simple and practical to protect a woman or women whom they have — likely — not yet even met!” Essentially, you said that when it comes to boys/men being responsible for girls’/women’s health and well-being, we boys/men are indeed ‘our sisters’ keepers’ vis-a-vis our behavior re. sexual promiscuity, ensuring we get vaccinations, use proper BC, etc.
However, in this post, which to me speaks of women’s responsibility to accept the consequences of their behavior, rather than telling them that they should consider “doing something simple and practical to protect” their sensibilities vis-a-vis percieved ‘lustful stares,’ you instead once again make it boy’s/men’s responsibilities to ‘look away.’ Never mind that girls/women might want to consider doing something “simple and practical” like not dressing like a cheap (or expensive) hooker if they don’t want to invoke lustful stares (real or imagined) from boys/men.
Come on Hugo, can’t you see how patronizing and, ahem, inconsistent you appear to be? You hold boys/men responsible for everything that they do, as well as everything girls/women do. And in doing so, you’re treating girls/women like helpless little children who need constant protection from those big, bad, mean males, who (gasp!) might do something horrible like, e.g., visually assaulting (i.e., staring at) them. Or something.
Man, I wish I had my Muck Boots on – it’s getting deep in here.
Q Grrl, the man you described – if indeed the incident actually happened – is truly a pig, but I’m not convinced that this sort of behavior is common at all. Personallly, I’ve never in my life witnessed such a thing from a man. Sure, I’ve seen guys sitting around on the mall watching the girls, checking out the “eye candy” (especially in the springtime), but frankly, the girls are checking out the guys just as intently. IMO it’s all part of the mating dance that humans do. But to do as Hugo is, castigating one sex for engaging in it while giving the other sex a pass is, well, sexist.
Oh, and Q Grrl, you mentioned that he was talking to the traffic monitors and not you, so perhaps you might consider minding your own business and not eavedropping in on other people’s private conversations if the content bothers you.
Just a thought.
A great philosopher [okay, it was Seinfeld] once said: “Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don’t stare at it. It’s too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away.”
Mr Bad: I will reply, but I hope that you don’t tend to derail this thread with your dislike of feminists. As I said, the man was having a public conversation with public (and working) individuals in a public setting. It was by no means private, nor meant to be — why else would the man be shouting to other men 20 yards away? If men have a “right” to gaze, women have a “right” to respond as they feel appropriate. Free speech and all that.
For heaven’s sakes, Mr. Bad, I am not letting women off the hook here. As a pro-feminist man, my job is to be an advocate for feminism to men. There are countless men and women out there preaching accountability to women, and far fewer doing so to men.
Yes, I focus much more on what men can do than what women can do. That’s at the heart and soul of pro-feminist work; we must always be focused on transforming ourselves and those who share our sex before pointing fingers across the gender divide. And while women are often very, very hard on other women — men are rarely really hard on each other.
And I am hard on men because I love them and believe in them.
I’m also not offended, though I agree with The Happy Feminist and Q Grrl that my big issue is respectful action — and to fend off the inevitable comments that women are terribly conceited by assuming that staring indicates lust on the part of the starer, it doesn’t much matter to me whether the staring originates with lust, revulsion, or anything in between. As Q Grrl says, being stared at is threatening for most people, men included, and nobody should be the object of threatening behavior based on their body shape or manner of dress. I say this as a fat girl who favors jeans and loose t-shirts as my public and private mode of dress; the stares, whistles, shouted insults, etc. directed at me in public from time to time are presumably due to my being insufficently decorative for the guy who decided to hold forth rather than any lust on his part, but that doesn’t make it any less wearying.
I hate to take on Mr. Bad when we are happily in agreement at the moment, but I would challenge his perception that the behavior described by Q Grrl is rare. I bet most any woman you talk to could name a litany of similar examples involving men who have expressed lust in a propietary or disrespectful manner. (Also, I don’t think Hugo was confining his thoughts to just men looking at women, it works the other way around too.)
Just off the top of my head, I can think of a guy who commented to his buddies “check out the semen receptacle” as I trotted down the street in my lawyer suit just the other day, the boss who used to call me “pussycat,” and the most common example, the men who blatantly look me up and down in business contexts. I would never describe this stuff as “a visual assault” and it may not be the end of the world, but it’s disrespectful and it’s all too common.
>If men have a “right” to gaze, women have a “right” to respond
>as they feel appropriate. Free speech and all that.
Yes — it looks to me like this isn’t about men having the “right” to stare at women; as Hugo rightly points out, they already do. It’s about a desire to engage in rude behavior without fear of societal disapproval or reprisal on the part of the target of that rude behavior.
FWIW, I find it just as rude when it’s women staring at men, although I submit that being gawped at is considerably more threatening when it’s done by somebody who’s twice your size and can easily wrestle you to the ground.
Q Grrl, sorry that I got on your case about nosing in on a private conversation, but if you re-read your original post you were not at all clear that he was “shouting to other men 20 years away.” You said that he “was lounging near the bus-stop and mentioned to the traffic monitors” etc. You have to admit that your revision is definitely quite different than your original statement. But hey, now that you’ve cleared it up (?), again, sorry for jumping on your case about that.
Hugo, as long as you’re up front and make it clear that you hold men to a higher (i.e., double) standard than you do women then I suppose I’m Ok with that. But you seem to think that we men don’t hold each other accountable, and that’s not true; spend some time at SYG sometime and you’ll see that we most definitely do hold each other accountable. Further, you said that “we must always be focused on transforming ourselves and those who share our sex before pointing fingers across the gender divide”, but do you hold female feminists to the same standard? Seems like female feminists (and women in general) do a lot of finger-pointed across the gender divide, yet I’ve heard a whole lot of nothing from you and other feminists re. this. More double standards IMO.
Or is that more of that “male privilege” I keep hearing about?
i’m interested in this one sentence: “Lust is distinct from sexual desire for one’s partner or spouse, precisely because with one’s partner, that desire is a reflection of a commitment that already exists.”
are you saying here that sexual desire for one’s partner is lust within the boundaries of commitment? if so, then it’s not really fundamentally different from lust, it just has different parameters. if not, then what makes sexual desire for one’s spouse fundamentally different from lust, not just categorically different?
it’s an interesting distinction, but i can’t quite see where the hair splits here….
Hi THF, no problem re. disagreements – I’m a very disagreeable person, so I’m down with that.
Like I said, I’ve not had any experience with guys like the ones you describe, but they do sound like jerks and losers who deserve condemnation. But I’m not about to make broad generalizations about my entire gender simply based on the poor behavior of a few; it would be like you characterizing all women as cheap hookers based on the poor behavior of a few. And as I’ve said before on other threads, IMO sometimes gazes that women just know are lecherous may in fact be motivated by something else (e.g., disbelief, shock, etc.). As I’ve said before, you might be misinterpreting the look.
But as far as rude behavior goes, I agree – nobody should tolerate it. Which is why I was bothered by Q Grrl’s story about telling the guy to “fuck off” based on what he said to another person in a conversation that Q Grrl was not intended to be involved in. Now I don’t know about you, but I consider being told to “fuck off” by someone with whom I’m not talking with a pretty rude thing to do irrespective of whether or not the guy deserved it. So if we’re going to cite Christian teachings, etc., then “turn the other cheek” comes to mind in that scenario.
>And as I’ve said before on other threads, IMO sometimes
>gazes that women just know are lecherous may in fact be
>motivated by something else (e.g., disbelief, shock, etc.).
>As I’ve said before, you might be misinterpreting the look.
It hardly matters what it’s motivated by, IMO.
Mr. Bad: You believe on one hand that the man I described deserved condemnation, but on the other hand you find it rude that I actually did condemn him with my “fuck off” reply. How would you envision his condemnation? [this is not meant as a snarky comment, I'm interested in where you draw the particular line, and why]
Mr. Bad’s comment about the possibility of women misinterpreting men’s conduct as lecherous is interesting. I think one of the more uncomfortable things about being a woman is that you are always trying to guage whether you are overreacting to something or not. As a dewy young thing many years ago, I was constantly in the position of having to decide whether questionable conduct warranted some sort of reaction on my part. Maybe it really is accidental that so-and-so keeps brushing up against me at work . . . Maybe I am just imagining that so-and-so is staring at my chest . . . Is it really that big a deal if so-and-so tells a dirty joke involving me . . . etc.
Women constantly have to decide “Do I risk overreacting or do I risk doing nothing and then possibly losing respect or being blamed if the situation escalates?”
>Mr. Bad’s comment about the possibility of women misinterpreting
>men’s conduct as lecherous is interesting. I think one of the more
>uncomfortable things about being a woman is that you are always
>trying to guage whether you are overreacting to something or not.
Yup. My experience as well.
Q Grrl, IMO both of you chose to be rude. He chose to make insulting public statements directed at nobody in particular, and you chose to make insulting public statements directed at an individual using profanity that some people are just as offended by as the words that he used. He did what he did, but you chose to escalate the situation rather than ‘turning the other cheek.’
It’s a common dilemma for us men: Do we just let the general insulting behavior slide or do we chose to respond, not only escalating the situation but also validating the original behavior. We men are constantly told to ‘turn the other cheek and walk away,’ so perhaps this is why I thought of this and you didn’t. IMO you got away with what you did because you’re a woman; if a man had told the guy to “fuck off” I think there’s a strong likelihood that he would have had a fight on his hands. After all, a guy who makes such remarks in public would IMO be likely to take it up (verbally or/and physically) with another man under those conditions.
For me, personally, I would have ignored his remarks and not validated them by responding in any way whatsoever. It would also spare me the risk of confrontation.
It’s interesting that Mr. Bad should mention “turn the other cheek” as an appropriate response. It’s not really about humbly accepting the scorn, but rather the person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect “Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me.”
see http://www.soulofacitizen.org/newimp/impexcerptwink.htm
Okay folks, and meanwhile, back at the thread…
Let’s consider discussion of this particular incident closed, and move back to discussing the post.
Of course, I lose most right-wing social conservatives by suggesting that the primary onus ought to lie with the one who is lusting, not with the one who is the object of lust. While I am not encouraging immodest dress, ultimately the struggle against objectification can’t hinge on what other folks are wearing. To put it in economic terms, I’m not interested in cutting off the supply of visually stimulating bodies and images, I’m interested only in addressing the demand. I’m anti-porn, as my readers know — but I have no interest in lifting a finger towards the goal of getting laws passed to ban porn. My hatred of porn rests comfortably with my zealous belief that porn is protected by the First Amendment.
The fundamental (and fundamentally correct) conservative insight is that human nature is not particularly malleable, which makes pretty much any social change which requires a “change of heart” impossible to enact or sustain without some sort of agency outside the individual enforcing conformity with the change.
Men (in general) will always feel lust, and will always be drawn to look at attractive women dressed revealingly. And some of those men will look in disrespctful ways, or act disrespectfully, unless there is a strong social or legal constraint against doing so. In the pre-sexual-revolution days, the supply of revealingly-dressed women was rather lower than it is now (even in summertime), but there were also strong social sanctions against acting like an asshole towards women. Those sanctions were different in different classes, though the values of the middle class were stronger in the working and non-working classes than they are today. Also, there are far more women today than then who were deliberately attempting to evoke lust in men, and much less social sanction against those women who do so. (That too, is partly class-bsaed.) The fact that some women are trying to create that behavior is pretty effective in defeating attempts to restrict the behavior.
Appealing to men’s “better nature” isn’t going to create change, unless you can show men that they will be better off, or if you can create a sanction which men will care about. Being hectored by feminists is not a sanction which will deter most men.
The social conservative agenda of eliminating the most blatant displays of sexuality from the public square aims at the same end, but proposes a somewhat practical method of reaching that end, as people’s mores do follow the law to some extent, and a law which discouraged pornography will also increase the social sanction against it. It’s also not likely to be terribly effective, as most social conservatives don’t understand the relationships between the other social institutions and laws which have changed, and so have no idea which changes can be reversed while leaving others alone and still acheiving results they desire, so they propose going back to a mythical 1950s utopia, which most Americans will reject.
What do you propose?
Regarding offensive speech and overreaction, this is the same problem that many minorities face in our society when it comes to racetalk. Because it’s usually socially unacceptable in mixed company to state sexist or racist opinions directly, non-verbal communication and obscure language may or may not be masking disrespect or even hate. It’s hard for the person on the recieving end to know what to do when the action may be acceptable but the attitude clearly is not.The prevalence of PC language etiquette doesn’t get rid of nasty attitudes. It might spare people having to listen to racial or sexist slurs directly, but the fact is they’re still there and they still come out.
That’s why standards of etiquette for behavior – like the discussions of “looking” on this thread and Wednesday’s post – are needed to encourage us, like PC language really ought to, to think about the other person as a person. It might require that we go out of our way, but that shouldn’t change our responsibility to respect each other.
OK, I’m going to get in trouble here. But to answer Anthony’s question (which I realize was directed at Hugo), I guess I like the status quo. I want people to have some degree of freedom to behave badly (whether that means leering at someone or wearing clothing that some may consider inappropriate) unless it’s going to screw up my safety or my job.
There have always been some men who leer at women even in eras when women were more covered up. Although I may feel anger and discomfort from time to time, I also feel that I have the tools with which to stand up for myself when my safety or my job are threatened — including a legal system that has a better understanding of rape than in previous eras and options for responding to sexual harassment that has an adverse impact on my job. The key is to improve the public’s understanding of these things so that more people understand why it is wrong to objectify others and what the potential consequences are in terms of criminal or civil penalties.
In the pre-sexual-revolution days, the supply of revealingly-dressed women was rather lower than it is now (even in summertime), but there were also strong social sanctions against acting like an asshole towards women.
I think this overlooks a huge array of circumstances in which acting like an asshole was perfectly acceptable. (Discrimination in the workplace and sexual harassment come immediately to mind.) There’s also a certain level of approbation associated with this kind of conduct along the lines of boys will be boys.
I think the point here is that “boys will be boys” or “girls will be girls” or human nature is a cop out. It excuses/attempts to explain away conduct that is legitimately worthy of condemnation. I think Hugo’s emphasis on personal responsibility is well placed because it makes the point that individuals are not some helpless figure adrift in a world of scantily clad women and porn. These are things that you will be exposed to. The point is to encourage people to elect to say “that’s not right/appropriate/suitable” rather than to say “oooh, look! gimme, gimme.” We are responsible for our choices and to say “I couldn’t help it, she was flaunting” just diminishes our own responsibility.
evil fizz: As another pointed out (in this thread or the other related one earlier this week), girls and women are (or at least should be) fully aware that when they dress provocatively (e.g., with langerie, undergarments, lace, skin, etc., exposed) this will turn men on. So, would you also encourage “personal responsibility” on the part of girls who dress provocatively, and if/when they do so, to not take it as an insult, etc., if boys or men stare at them lustfully? After all, the girl/woman is inviting a look, so what’s the problem with boys/men complying?
And as I’ve already said, acting on the lust is unacceptable. But we’ve covered that, so please just stick to the topic and answer the above question.
Mr. Bad is referring to the thread A Note on Tough Bunnies & Feminism
…girls and women are (or at least should be) fully aware that when they dress provocatively (e.g., with langerie, [sic] undergarments, lace, skin, etc., exposed) this will turn men on.
Again, this is missing the point. Whatever the “standards” for women’s fashion or their participation/culpability in the effect of the styles, Hugo is saying that men’s sexual response to this is neither necessary nor “innocent.” People are responsbile for their thoughts, not only their actions, whether they are lustful or disrespectful or whatever else.
As to your claim that Hugo doesn’t call women to equal accountability – do check out the “Sisterhood is Easier in Winter” post – I think he does deal with accountability between women there. In each thread the focus is on our responsibility to respect ourselves and each other.
As feminists, we simultaneously must hold in tension a desire not to shame the female body with a desire not to foster a culture of competitiveness and objectification. We must hold in tension the importance of individual rights of self-expression with the community’s right not to be offended.
So, would you also encourage “personal responsibility” on the part of girls who dress provocatively
Sure. Everyone is required to acknowledge that their choice of dress will influence how people percieve and look (literally) at them. But there’s a difference between knowing that people may look at you lustfully and asking to be ogled. Admittedly, a fine line, but not a wholly artificial distinction, I don’t think.
Is the looking itself an insult? It depends, and I think this point has been thoroughly discussed. Likewise, the problem with “complying” is that it’s not a monolithic response. Wanting to be looked at, admired, or seen as a attractive is distinct from wanting someone to try and fall (metaphorically) into your cleavage. Yes, it’s a fine line to walk.
I think the other issue that’s complicating things here is this line between looking and acting. Is a man who won’t look at my face because I missed a button on my blouse looking or acting? Or is he not acting until he says “nice tits” or tries to touch me? Are looking and acting mutually exclusive?
I’d like to point out, also, that the phrase “dressing provocatively” contains the assumption that a woman intends to “provoke” attention from men by wearing revealing clothing. This may be true in any given case; then again, it may not.
FIzz, I’ll answer you and hugo all in one:
I am perfectly capable of admiring a well-shaped female form for it’s own sake, being aware that it is not mine to touch, reasonably concluding that it will probably never be “on limits” to me, and harboring no long -term fantasies or obsessions about it.
As are the very very vast and overwhelming majority of men.
Admiration does not always lead to lust to harassment to criminal actions. It just isn’t so. Men are a lot stronger and more moral than that – you’re trying to circumscribe behavoior for all men based on the actions of a scant few.
If I wore a muscle shirt that showed off the abs, a tight pair of jeans that left little to the imagination, an unbuttoned shirt that showed off my chest, I’d reasonably have to expect the consequence – namely, those who find such things nice to look at, be they women, gay men, or whatever, will look. I’m not being oppressed. I’m not being objectified. I’m making a choice to dress in a fashion, and being an adult enough to accept the consequences.
And honest to God, if the biggest thing I had to worry about in my life was whether or not I was being ogled, I’d have it pretty easy. Right now it’s at a point on my list of concerns that has four digits. I’m really glad other people have life so good that it’s much higher – and if they don’t, it’s time for a serious re-assessment of priorities.
Excellent thread, folks. Anthony, I’ll see if I can’t take a stab at answering the serious questions you ask soon.
Admiration does not always lead to lust to harassment to criminal actions. It just isn’t so. Men are a lot stronger and more moral than that – you’re trying to circumscribe behavoior for all men based on the actions of a scant few.
Genuinely perplexed on this point…circumscribe what behavior? Looking at women?
Whether the woman in front of me is in a thong or a burka, what I do with my eyes and my thoughts is all on me, 100%.
Are you on drugs? For somebody who claims to be a “pro-feminist Christian man of faith” you’ve got an awfully patriarchal view of male/female relations. When feminism was a respectable point of view it insisted on a fundamental equality of the sexes, so the default assignment of responsibility for anything that takes place within the nexus of male/female relations is 50/50.
Women who dress provocatively are making a statement, and if you choose to ignore that statement you infantilize, silence, and disempower them. Women who dress in burkas are making a statement, and if you choose to ignore that statement, so also diminish them.
So why don’t you get down off your high-horse and join the world of the living? This wall of stereotypes you’ve erected against honest interactions is really hurting you. Rather than telling yourself that you have a “job” because you believe yourself to be a set of stereotypes, or that others think as they do because they’re “MRAs” or some other stereotype, embrace your fundamental humanity and that of your brothers and sisters on this planet and accept reality on its own terms. A sexy young women in tight low-riding jeans, a bare midriff and a low-cut top is asking you to check her out and form the opinion that you’d like to hit that. That doesn’t entitle you to any action, of course, and we all know that. But she is asking you to look, to approve, and to feel a little swelling as she walks by. She made a conscious choice when she dressed herself, she’s not an inanimate little object, and she deserves to be noticed. Similarly, the woman who chooses to adorn herself with a burka is asking you to think of Allah and to respect her for her purity, which isn’t actually all that different from what the sexy chick is saying. In burkaland, a woman in a burka is a desirable woman. In sexyland, a sexy woman is desirable. And we all want to be desirable at some level.
Being a “pro-feminist Christian man of faith” doesn’t mean you have to give yourself a lobotomy, does it? Or that you have to castrate yourself?
“Are you on drugs?”
Four cups of coffee count?
“Being a ‘pro-feminist Christian man of faith’ doesn’t mean you have to give yourself a lobotomy, does it? Or that you have to castrate yourself?”
Well, there’s always Matthew 19:12.
The point is to encourage people to elect to say “that’s not right/appropriate/suitable” rather than to say “oooh, look! gimme, gimme.”
EvilFizz, the point I was making is that people need institutional support for the sort of change you want.
Right now, there is actually some social sanction against saying “that’s not appropriate” in all except the more extreme cases. How do you propose to change that? Encouraging men (and women) to not act “inappropriately” for themselves is not going to reach the people it most needs to reach. How do you encourage people to speak out against inappropriate behavior, when there’s a fairly strong social animus against “making value judgements”?
The social conservative answer – ban all display of sexuality, and all sexual acts outside marriage, and encourage women to take traditional homemaker roles only, won’t work, because too many people are unwilling to give up some of the freedoms gained in the past 50 years, and the social conservatives can’t figure out how to discourage “licentious” behavior without suppressing those freedoms.
Remember that in large part, this is a class issue – working-class men are far more likely to make crude comments or otherwise behave objectionably than middle-class men are. How do you penetrate the attitudes of the working class?
OK, you’re addressed the easy part of my comment, the first and last sentences that provided the wrapping around the actual thought. Be a man and show me you read the meat of it.
Well, now. Lust is a class issue, and women are 50% responsible for what men do. The things one learns in blogs…
Remember that in large part, this is a class issue – working-class men are far more likely to make crude comments or otherwise behave objectionably than middle-class men are. How do you penetrate the attitudes of the working class?
Um, wow. I was unaware that manners and appropriate behavior were the province of the middle class. My experience is that money and being classy have sod all to do with each other.
On the issue of institutional support, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with sexual harassment and inappropriate physical contact. It’s called the legal system. Lawsuits may not be the ideal solution, but knowing that you can be fired, censured, and sued for acting inappropriately (at least in a professional or academic environment) seems to be a significant incentive. Admittedly, it cannot address things like catcalling (although technically, I’m sure egregious behavior could warrant civil claims).
Also, in terms of sexual harassment, the legal system has put a tremendous amount of pressure on companies to ensure that their employees behave appropriately. Companies without internal systems for dealing with sexual harassment or those seen as being nonresponsive to such allegations can get annihilated in court.
However, I think I’m not adequately addressing the more subtle issues and circumstances that we’ve been talking about in this post. I’ll have to think some more about that.
One wonders why we bother teaching women to speak or write at all, when they’re always making “statements” by covering or revealing parts of their bodies.
A sexy young women in tight low-riding jeans, a bare midriff and a low-cut top is asking you to check her out and form the opinion that you’d like to hit that. That doesn’t entitle you to any action, of course, and we all know that. But she is asking you to look, to approve, and to feel a little swelling as she walks by.
And for the sexy young woman – non-sexy women’s “statements” aren’t particularly important here, I take it – who likes to do her “asking” and “telling” with her words, not her tits, what outfits do you recommend? Burkas are right out, you’ve already said. So are jeans and women’s t-shirts. Your great respect for women’s “conscious choices” makes it clear that it’s you who decide what women mean by our clothes, not us, so be a pal and help us out here. What should we wear when we don’t want to “ask” you for anything at all?
What should we wear when we don’t want to “ask” you for anything at all?
I’m sure you can figure it out if you put your mind to it.
Well, sophonisba, I’m sure we could play process of elimination. I’ve managed to attract unwanted attention recently in a business suit and a sweatshirt and baggy yoga pants, so clearly those are out.
Oooh! I think I know! I was left alone while wearing a cassock and surplice at church recently.
Regardless, I would imagine that every woman posting here has had an experience with negative attention when she hasn’t been wearing her lowrider jeans and dinner napkin of a shirt. The issue is not exclusive to those times when women are trying to titillate or appear sexy. Those are the times where suggesting that women take responsibility for their outfits won’t carry us far enough.
Oh no, I’m not that bright. See, I’ve been wearing what I please for most of my adult life, and much of the time, you can see that I have breasts – sometimes even cleavage! and for the past four years, all of my jeans have been low-riding. It’s what they sell in stores, you know. I was too dumb to know that I was communicating complex messages to strangers – I thought I was dressing like other college students, and later, I thought I was dressing like other women in their twenties. If I’m too dumb to know I was asking men for attention all along, as I clearly was, I certainly can’t figure out how to stop on my own. Other women are no help; they pretend they’re “dressing for themselves” or their “boyfriends” or the “weather” or even, get this, their “friends.”
Like women have friends. Ha! And female friends? As if women care what other women think! Silly, huh? No, it’s all about the erections you can cause, like you said. How can another woman’s opinion of your clothes matter to you when you can’t even make her penis swell?
So you see, you’re my only hope for some honest advice on how to make my clothes stop speaking for me. But I can see why you’re reluctant to help. This must be the first time a woman’s asked you for something in words in a long time. Perhaps you could pretend I’m asking you questions by silently wearing a miniskirt and a tube top and miming, if my use of language unnerves you.
I know this is relatively off topic, but I’d encourage people to go look at this Slate article, which is about a growing fashion market for conservative Muslim women.
evil_fizz – yeah. And plenty of women who wear baggy sweats get yelled at for not trying to be sexy, too. How dare we! The message that we don’t care if men are turned on or not is clearly the most provocative message of all.
The notorious FCOS (“feminist chip on the shoulder”) has reared its ugly head here. It never fails that whenever somebody tries to inject a little reason into any discussion of women’s grievances, real or imaginary, that the discussion is sidetracked with sarcasm, sneering, and straw women.
Dress any way you want, write any way you want, sneer any way you want. The patriarchy is relentless in its oppression of you, so you’re doomed no matter what you do. Give up, you can’t win.
Biological life has evolved on this planet in concert with all sorts of signals of sexuality and sexual attraction for literally hundreds of millions of years, and the aberrations represented by fundamentalist Islam and sneering pseudo-feminism won’t make a dent.
The forces you’re dealing with are vast, and the current fads are tiny.
And of course it’s completely unreasonable to develop a chip on one’s shoulder in response to those who claim the right to define which of other one’s grievances are real and which are imaginary.
Erin: “FWIW, I find it just as rude when it’s women staring at men, although I submit that being gawped at is considerably more threatening when it’s done by somebody who’s twice your size and can easily wrestle you to the ground.”
I appreciate your fairness, and I agree with the point you’re trying to make. I’ll say, though, that — just like I mentioned in the “assault” thread — sometimes the bigger person becomes the hidden victim.
I’ve relayed this story before. At my music camp over a year ago, there was a woman — I’d put her at around 65 — grabbing other women’s butts. They said, half as a joke and half as a “get the hell away from me, psycho,” that she should do that do a guy. So she saw me in the distance and made her move. I kept her at arm’s length with a stiff-arm block. I remember her looking at me defiantly and saying “I’M allowed!” (That might be the part that p’d me off the most, the sense of entitlement and “that’s different.”) So I disabused her of that myth rather quickly. I wish I could have maced her.
And the thing is: too many people will hear that story and figure that I almost got “lucky” (with the unwanted butt grab) and wouldn’t understand why I wouldn’t want that done to me without my permission. Most of those people, of course, would admonish me if *I* were the one copping a feel of women at camp, of course, but would see it differently this way. Hidden victims…
boy genteel
From a Christian perspective, I believe the responsibility lies with both parties. As a Christian woman, who seeks to help my Christian brothers abide by the principles they believe, I feel a certain responsibility to not wear clothes that invite people to look at intimate parts of my body. For instance, I will not wear a shirt that exposes my breasts, I will wear short skirts, but nothing that exposes my butt when I bend over. To me, you can look fashionable and still dress modestly. Of course, I, having gained a considerable amount of weight after babies one and two, don’t really have to worry about this so much anymore. Back when I was thinner and much more comfortable with my looks, however, I really did try to watch what I wore around my male friends. On the other hand, men absolutely have to accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions. If someone were standing on front of them wearing a string bikini, they have responsibility on how to act in that circumstance. They can’t place all the blame on the person in front of them. This would be easier for me if we were all Christians and lived by the same ideals
Now the feminist part of me will tell you that a woman has every right to dress how she would like and not be ogled or have rude comments made to her and vice versa for men. It’s all about basic respect. A woman or a man in a sexually provocative outfit should expect to be looked at, they are fooling themselves if they are not. However, adults of both sexes should be able to look and say, oh wow she’s pretty or he’s handsome, without drooling, staring, ogling or making obnoxious comments. That’s where this personal responsibility comes in… you are 100% responsible for what you do with your eyes, thoughts and words.
And to answer someone (I can’t remember the name) but I don’t think it’s infantalizing a woman for Hugo to say he’s responsible for where his eyes and thoughts wander. She may be inviting him to look, but that is absoluetly not an invitation that he must accept. We are all responsible for our own thoughts and feelings, even though we may look to help another person in their struggles, ultimately they must do it themselves. I would personally be very unhappy if my husband looked at another woman and thought “I’d like to hit that”, no matter the invitation she was offering by her outfit. Not that I have a problem with him looking at another woman and admitting that he finds her attractive, but actually taking the step to say “she’s hot and I want to have sex with her” is to me, the line between acceptable and not acceptable.
Richard, petal, ruminating at length and in public about your “swellings” is perhaps less indicative of “reason” than you would like to believe. The fact that men of your age and ideology believe young sexy women dress with the aim of giving men of your or Hugo’s age erections makes you fun to play with, but it does not make you scary.
(Go on, ask me how I can tell what generation you belong to.)
And “vast forces?” Oh dear, dear, dear. You’ll never convince anyone you don’t like feminist mockery if you keep dressing that way – I mean, if you keep setting yourself up like that. Those tight jeans – er, rhetorical flourishes, I mean – don’t suit you half as well as you think, either. Leave them to the younger, sexier MRAs, hmmm?
bmmmg – I’ll bet that woman’s age had a lot to do with her entitlement. Dirty old women, like dirty old men, tend to think they’re a lot more charming than they usually are. I’m glad you got her to back off.
I wondered how long it would take Richard to make his way over here, although Mr. Bad kind of has his niche.
I wish I could have maced her.
Me too.
Hugo, you (intentionally?) took my comment out of context. You said that it was OK to look at another human being with, for example, awe at their dancing ability, or to marvel at the aesthetic grace of a performer. But when that awe is infused with lust, suddenly that’s bad. I don’t see why.
The comparison to ballet dancers was also kind of hilarious, as if lust isn’t a natural consequence of watching the aesthetic grace of the young Peter Martins or Mikhail Baryshnikov. If lust is as corrupting as Hugo insists, every middle-aged balletomane is as bad as all the Playboy readers.
The definition of lust as acquisitive and possessive is where my agreement shuts down, incidentally, that and the lauding of the mighty, powerful, “penetrative” male gaze. (This thread has a pretty good example of how quickly male gazer becomes flustered and impotent when a woman gazes back at him.) Lust has no more to do with possession than admiration does, and in fact, healthy lust is not unlike admiration. There’s no appropriation going on – the contents of my own head were not appropriated from anybody. They are only ever mine. From the original post:
it is the desire to appropriate, if only in fantasy, something for ourselves that is not ours to have. Lust is distinct from sexual desire for one’s partner or spouse, precisely because with one’s partner, that desire is a reflection of a commitment that already exists.
A wife or a girlfriend is no more her lover’s “to have” than a random woman on the street is. The idea that a person can’t lust without wanting to own, but it’s ok to own a woman who’s legitimately yours, is amazingly repellent. Also instantly recogniseable as false to anyone who’s felt non-posessive lust, as most adults have. Sex is not possession, not ownership; therefore, the desire for sex is not, in itself, desire for possession or ownership.
The difference between my partner and a stranger is that my partner is entitled to tell me when he fantasizes about me and not expect to give offense. But his fantasies about me have no intrinsic power over me. Having regular sex with me doesn’t make his imagined mental image of me any more real than anyone else’s. I don’t exist in his brain, I exist in real life. Thinking about me isn’t manipulating my physical body. Fantasies aren’t real.
Mr Bad, women often recieve lustful stares (and comments) when dressed in an entirely unremarkable and professional manner. I’ve been catcalled while wearing a trouser suit and carrying a laptop case – hardly hooker-wear.
What some seem to be missing here is what Hugo clearly stated in his original post – there is a difference between noticing an attractive person and giving them a quick appreciative glance, and impinging upon their personal space by openly staring or making rude comments. The first is a natural and almost universal human impulse. The second is bad manners. I’m not seeing why some people have such a hard time seeing the difference. Do people actually think that certain categories of individuals are somehow deserve to be treated rudely?
I don’t really buy the lust versus desire dichotomy you’re setting up here though, Hugo. I think that what we feel for our partners is still lust, the difference is not so much in the basic impluse as it is in the way that impulse is expressed. In other words, we feel lust for the people we love, but the lust is combined with a lot of other feelings such as love, respect, comfort, familiarity, etc. It’s still lust though, IMO.
I’m also going to second sophonisba RE the aesthetic appreciation of dancers and other performers. I think that lust is a commonplace and quite harmless part of the way people react to many of the visual arts. To the extent that there’s a difference between the lust that people feel for a beautiful ballet dancer and the lust that they feel when watching porn the difference isn’t so much that one reaction is lustful and the other isn’t, it’s more that the lust they feel for the dancer is tempered with respect for the person’s skill, admiration for their talent etc. It’s still lust, it’s just that the other emotions occurring at the same time are important in forming one’s overall perception of the person being lusted after.
Also, in reference to this statement
“A sexy young women in tight low-riding jeans, a bare midriff and a low-cut top is asking you to check her out and form the opinion that you’d like to hit that. That doesn’t entitle you to any action, of course, and we all know that. But she is asking you to look, to approve, and to feel a little swelling as she walks by.”
The thing that you’re missing here is the fact that, even if a deliberate visual display is being made and/or a message sent, that doesn’t mean that the message is aimed at you, random person on the street. To assume that it is is more than a little arrogant.
The thing that you’re missing here is the fact that, even if a deliberate visual display is being made and/or a message sent, that doesn’t mean that the message is aimed at you, random person on the street. To assume that it is is more than a little arrogant.
Why? If I have a message for one person and one person only, I communicate it in such a way that only that person perceives it. If I stand on a rooftop and shout it, then I can’t very well claim it was private.
Somebody advertises in front of random people on the street, then random people on the street are going to have a response. Quibbling about the intensity and character of the reponse we can do, but it’s silly to deny the basic fact that people will respond, at the physical and biological level. Seeing a disgustingly fat person just before you step into a restaurant can make you lose your appetite as well.
In the end, nature always wins.
Remember that in large part, this is a class issue – working-class men are far more likely to make crude comments or otherwise behave objectionably than middle-class men are. How do you penetrate the attitudes of the working class?
This is a common stereotype held by middle-class folks, but isn’t true. Boorish behavior is completely unrelated to the contents of one’s wallet. I’m blue-collar, have worked on construction sites for the past seventeen years (in twelve different Local’s jurisdictions), have literally grown up going to union halls and blue-collar taverns, and have never seen the kind of obnoxious behavior towards women that I’ve seen from middle-class, suit-wearing men. Why? Because this is a power issue. If you feel powerful (or want to), then you’re likely to assert that power over someone you perceive to be less powerful. Working-class men don’t tend to have anywhere near the sense of entitlement that middle-class men do—and you have to have a certain overriding sense of entitlement to yell out jeers, leers or insults to total strangers.
I’m not sold on the value of “modesty”, mostly because of this: what is deemed to be “modest” usually has less to do with the cut of the clothing than with the body of the woman wearing it. Don’t believe me? Then why would Julie have felt the need to say “Back when I was thinner and much more comfortable with my looks, however, I really did try to watch what I wore around my male friends.” In other words, the female form itself it what’s determined to be the problem. When it comes down to it, the dividing line between modest/not modest always seems to be “is there a visible female form?” and sometimes “is that female form one I deem to be attractive?”
Seeing a disgustingly fat person just before you step into a restaurant can make you lose your appetite as well.
Wow. That’s never happened to me. Are you afraid that if you enjoy a meal you’ll end up fat?! You’ve got issues, pal.
BritGirlSF said: “What some seem to be missing here is what Hugo clearly stated in his original post – there is a difference between noticing an attractive person and giving them a quick appreciative glance, and impinging upon their personal space by openly staring or making rude comments. The first is a natural and almost universal human impulse. The second is bad manners. I’m not seeing why some people have such a hard time seeing the difference. Do people actually think that certain categories of individuals are somehow deserve to be treated rudely?”
This really is the key and highlights what I have the most disagreement with. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The line is drawn when clearcut, unambiguous action occurs. This means a man or woman acts out on his/her lust. I personally don’t buy the argument that simply looking at a person the wrong way constitutes an actionable offense; if so, then the guy in the bar who attacks you because you “looked at him wrong” is as justified as the woman who takes offense at a stare. Grabbling tits? Obviously that’s actionable, but stares? Nope.
The main problem with this whole conundrum is the issue of “lustful thoughts.” Advocating enforcing some sort of code against ‘improper thoughts’ is truly Orwellian and a very slippery, steep slope indeed.
I’m not sure that anyone’s advocating for a code against improper thoughts, but rather an acknowledgement that not all thoughts are equally worthy of entertaining and some clearly shouldn’t be. I, for example, have entertained some fleeting, wildly inappropriate thoughts about my professors. The point is not that I didn’t act on it, but thought to myself “oooh, terrible idea/thought. get a grip!” I think that’s the position Hugo’s advocating. Not one in which you seek to control people’s thoughts, but rather where want people to carefully consider what they’re thinking and to take responsibility for how they choose to act as a consequence. (And for these purposes, acting includes looking.)
I’m also curious to know what constitutes an appropriate response to a stare. If someone’s starting in a way that makes me uncomfortable and I respond by saying “Knock it off, already,” have I crossed some kind of boundary? Hitting him or trying to pick a fight is clearly out, but do I have some sort of obligation not to respond?
This really is the key and highlights what I have the most disagreement with. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The line is drawn when clearcut, unambiguous action occurs. This means a man or woman acts out on his/her lust.
One factor I haven’t seen mentioned which I think affects the perception of impropriety, is *who* does the action in question.
When women dress provocatively, it has been mentioned that it is a “public” act. Kindof like a radio beacon. You hit everyone within visual range, both men and women, with it. It’s not possible to limit who you “look sexy” to. A women might want to attract that sexy guy over in the corner, but she doesn’t want to attract that old guy at the next table that seems to be “learing” at her.
While the action in question might be acceptable to a guy she wishes to attract, it’s improper if it is a guy or gal (sorry ginmar) she is not interested in or even repelled by.
I’m also curious to know what constitutes an appropriate response to a stare. If someone’s starting in a way that makes me uncomfortable and I respond by saying “Knock it off, already,” have I crossed some kind of boundary? Hitting him or trying to pick a fight is clearly out, but do I have some sort of obligation not to respond?
What if it is someone you *want* to look at you. Might you go over to him and strike up a conversation? Perhaps share a coffee, a drink or a dance? Might you signal him that you are receptive to him (or her) doing so?
Admiration does not always lead to lust to harassment to criminal actions. It just isn’t so. Men are a lot stronger and more moral than that – you’re trying to circumscribe behavoior for all men based on the actions of a scant few.
Genuinely perplexed on this point…circumscribe what behavior? Looking at women?
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
I’ve not had much time for the blogs the past few days, but I’d like to touch on something that I’ve seen a couple of times in these two threads.
It’s been posted by some that while boys/men should be held accountable for their reactions to girls/women, girls/women should also be held accountable for dressing “provocatively.” The problem is, though, that different people have different reactions to the varying styles of clothing.
For some men, the “provocative” clothing is a “come-on” that they respond to with inappropriate behavior. For some, it’s “nothing special,” just what they’re used to seeing. And some have a negative reaction to what most of us term “provocative” clothing.
I’ve known men for whom women dressed in more modest clothing, whether it be business suits or some more traditional-style modest dress, are more provocative. I’ve been told by some that there is something alluring and attractive about “leaving something to the imagination.”
I’ve also spoken with men from cultures where a woman’s wrist showing beneath her sleeve is “too provocative.” I’ve had discussions with these men about cultural beliefs that men are “too weak-willed” to be able to act responsibly if they can see any part of the women around them.
So, to me, blaming men’s reactions on the clothing that women wear is simply a refusal, by some men, to take responsibility for themselves. Whether a woman is covered in a burkha or is stark naked, the men around her are still responsible for their own reactions. It never ceases to amaze me how many would prefer having that responsibilty removed from their own shoulders and placed upon the shoulders of the people to whom they are reacting.
It’s kinda like kicking a dog because it growls at you when you startle it.
Maybe I’m going a bit off topic here, but as I was reading this thread, I kept coming back to a line from Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues: “My short skirt is not your invitation.”
I have been told I have good legs. I don’t show them off very often, because I hate shaving, but I do. Generally, there are two reasons for this. I am going somewhere where I want people (usually people I know) to look at me with lust, or I am going somewhere that I want to look nice for. (e.g. synagogue or the theatre or a family dinner.) In either case, yes, I like being appreciated for my physical appearance. However, even in the first case, I do not appreciate anything more than looks without my permission. Yes, dressing provocatively is a lighthouse, not a laser beam. This does not mean, however, that it is proper, polite, or humane to act on the signals being sent out without permission of the sendee. What if I’m wearing a blouse and short skirt to a restaurant, because I’m waiting for my boyfriend to show up for a date? It’s much more likely that I’m dressed that way for him and not random guy X, and neither my boyfriend nor random guy X has permission to do more than look without my agreement.
I’m also really, really clueless when it comes to reading people, so I can’t tell when people are ogling me, leering, or even just looking appreciatively. I just never see it. But I can say that all of the times that I have recieved catcalls, I have been wearing clothing that, with a headscarf, would have been permissible in, say, Egypt or Syria. Once, I was wearing my friend’s cloak, a swathe of wool that showed my head on top of a vast triangle of fabric, down to the tops of my sneakers. So, no, conservative clothing, even something akin to if not more concealing than a burka, will not stop the lecherous, objectifying behavior. My *long* skirt is not your invitation either.
I’ve also spoken with men from cultures where a woman’s wrist showing beneath her sleeve is “too provocative.”
Interesting point. I am reminded of a professor of mine who did a lot of work in a rural village in Senegal. The women frequently went topless, but exposing their legs between hip and knee was strictly verboten (almost comparable to women here walking around topless.) Students who came to visit were completely and totally perplexed that miniskirts were a no-no but going topless was fine. Talk about having to deal with your own responses right quick.
repeating: The line is drawn when clearcut, unambiguous action occurs. This means a man or woman acts out on his/her lust. I personally don’t buy the argument that simply looking at a person the wrong way constitutes an actionable offense; if so, then the guy in the bar who attacks you because you “looked at him wrong” is as justified as the woman who takes offense at a stare. Grabbling tits? Obviously that’s actionable, but stares? Nope.
When we got married, we decided to postpone our honeymoon until July so that we could go on an annual canoe trip with some of my husband’s good friends, whom I’d never met. He was really looking forward to introducing me to these friends of his.
When we got to Wisconsin, he called the friend who organizes the trip and made arrangements for us to meet the night before the canoe trip was scheduled to start. It was intended as a time for me to meet this very good friend of his and for the two of them to do some major catching up. The place where they arranged for us to meet was a bar in the “hippy district” with which the two of them were familiar.
Now, this was before I started dressing the way I do now (dresses and a headscarves), but I was still raised to dress “reasonably.” I wanted to make a good impression on this very close friend of my husband’s, so I was wearing a nice blouse and a simple skirt that came just above my knees.
We met, introductions were made, the friend and I got along well. Then I was in the position of just sitting there listening while they, standing beside where I sat, reminisced.
As I sat there at the bar watching the people around us, contemplating this environment that is so much different than the environment in which I grew up, a man walked up and started talking to me. He asked about the van outside that had the canoe on top. I told him that it belonged to my husband and nodded toward where he stood, less than a foot away from me.
The man had noticed the TX plates, so he asked if we were familiar with the area. I told him that my husband grew up in the area and that we would be canoing with friends. He proceeded to tell me about a strip of beach where nudists (and those trying to take advantage of the nudist aspect of the beach) congregate. Then he started telling me about how he and his wife had an “open marriage” and went on from there.
As he’d been telling me all these things, he’d been reaching behind me to put his glass on the bar, then reaching behind me to pick up his glass to get a drink. Each time he reached behind me, his other hand would “accidentally” (?) run up my leg.
I smiled. I pretended that I’d not noticed his hand running up my leg and that I wasn’t getting more and more creeped out by the guy. I just kept smiling, then started playing the bubbly stereotypical “S’th’n Belle,” telling him that I’d never been up there before in the summer-time, that we were on our honeymoon, and somehow slipping in the fact that my husband had been in the Marines for 15 years.
Ya know, it’s amazing how quickly he stopped putting his drink on the bar behind me. Pretty soon, he excused himself and mosied on down the bar.
But what *really* tickled me was that my husband and his friend, standing right beside where I was sitting, were so involved in catching up that they never even noticed what was going on.
So, to me, blaming men’s reactions on the clothing that women wear is simply a refusal, by some men, to take responsibility for themselves. Absolutely, Caitriona.
I suspect that the male defensiveness we’re seeing in reaction to this topic has a lot to do with barely acknowledged issues of shame connected to sexuality. These days we like to think that we’re enlightened and open-minded about sex, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
So this sense of shame manifests itself in men’s desire to remove reponsiblity for the “male gaze” from themselves and place it onto women. As I said above, the popular phrase “dressing provocatively” suggests that women “provoke” attention from men, so therefore it can’t be the fault of men if they have lustful thoughts. (This is why I prefer not to use that phrase, because it’s so loaded.)
Mr. Bad writes:
“This really is the key and highlights what I have the most disagreement with. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The line is drawn when clearcut, unambiguous action occurs. This means a man or woman acts out on his/her lust. I personally don’t buy the argument that simply looking at a person the wrong way constitutes an actionable offense; if so, then the guy in the bar who attacks you because you “looked at him wrong” is as justified as the woman who takes offense at a stare. Grabbling tits? Obviously that’s actionable, but stares? Nope.”
And what you have neatly dissected out of your scenario is the heavily gendered socialization of boys and girls. You will most likely *not* find grown males staring at each other — it is a highly aggressive act, and everyone knows this. What the men also know is that there are repurcussions from other males for staring which could and often lead to physical violence. They figured this out by the time they were 8 probably. Girls, on the other hand, are socialized to accept boys’ aggression [neatly summed in the trite phrase: boys will be boys]. Grown men have a sense of social freedom in staring at women. After all, they learned as boys that most girls will not return the aggression. In fact, I believe that because men have learned that girls/women will not return the aggression that the act of staring at women is itself non-aggressive. Which is bullshit of course.
Mr. Bad, you seem to have a hard time grasping the nuance between looking at a woman and staring. Being so obtuse is rather transparent in my book. You seem to think men stand to loose something if their social actions are criticized – yet I have not seen you articulate exactly what it is that men stand to lose by us examining their lust, their actions, or their perceptions of the female body and women’s choices. Without explicitly saying so, you imply that an attempt to treat women as fully human somehow decreases the humanity of men. Your default stance is the male body and male action as the status quo and delimiter of all human behavior, emotions, and morality. It is a strange world, indeed, that you inhabit.
You’re probably right, Dave. I know that my husband and I both react more strongly to things when there is something that tweaks a sense of past guilt over having not done something the way we wished we had.
Oh, and on the comments above about weight – FWIW, I tend to get just as much attention at a heavier weight as I did when I was thinner. I started to say that perhaps it’s more about self-confidence, but I think there’s a lot more to it, since I also see a lot of people with nearly no self-confidence who receive those “admiring glances.”
Even very “homely” can be very attractive to people when they exude an aura of happiness and confidence. I’ve a book where the author relates a story about a woman who lives near her and her family. This woman wasn’t very “good-looking,” by typical standards, but she was always smiling and bubbly.
The author noticed one day that men flocked around this woman in droves, always wanting to talk with her. The author asked her husband about it, and he responded that the woman was very pretty and people came away happy when they spent time around her.
Then one day, they saw her at the grocery store. On this particular day, the woman wasn’t her usual smiling, happy self. She was very angry with her teenage daughter and was scolding the girl in the store. The author’s husband didn’t even recognize the woman, thought she was someone they didn’t know.
Her whole attitude was what made the difference.
Eh, the above should read: “In fact, I believe that because men have learned that girls/women will not return the aggression that men wholly believe that the act of staring at women is itself non-aggressive. Which is bullshit of course. “
So this sense of shame manifests itself in men’s desire to remove reponsiblity for the “male gaze” from themselves and place it onto women. As I said above, the popular phrase “dressing provocatively” suggests that women “provoke” attention from men, so therefore it can’t be the fault of men if they have lustful thoughts.
the issue i have with the last statement is that there is the assumption of lust. people have a horrible time reading body language, especially of the opposite gender, and staring generally unnerves most people. so it is entirely possible that women misread or project something into a stare that actually is not there. it also assumes that men are attracted to the woman to begin with, which also could not be the case.
another issue i have with the statement is assuming that people, particularly women, do not dress to attract attention. this strikes me as terribly untrue. many women, i would even hazard to say most women, dress to attraction attention to themselves, either from other women, men, or both. dressing provactively draws attention, as we all know, and it is not fair to say that men are projecting their shame onto women when women themselves are dressing in a manner they know draws attention to them. i do not think there is any “responsibility” for “male gaze” since staring in and of itself is something our society considers rude. however, if it is a poor excuse to say that you are staring because of the way someone looks, it is equally ridiculous to say women do nothing to attract the attention.
the responsibility, if there is any in this case, is mutual.
QGrrl >> And what you have neatly dissected out of your scenario is the heavily gendered socialization of boys and girls. You will most likely *not* find grown males staring at each other — it is a highly aggressive act, and everyone knows this. What the men also know is that there are repurcussions from other males for staring which could and often lead to physical violence. They figured this out by the time they were 8 probably. Girls, on the other hand, are socialized to accept boys’ aggression [neatly summed in the trite phrase: boys will be boys]. Grown men have a sense of social freedom in staring at women. After all, they learned as boys that most girls will not return the aggression. In fact, I believe that because men have learned that girls/women will not return the aggression that the act of staring at women is itself non-aggressive. Which is bullshit of course.
Bullshit is right. Because a man might stare at other men for reasons that are completely different than when men stare at women. Surely you can see the different motivations for the stare.
So, to me, blaming men’s reactions on the clothing that women wear is simply a refusal, by some men, to take responsibility for themselves. Whether a woman is covered in a burkha or is stark naked, the men around her are still responsible for their own reactions.It never ceases to amaze me how many would prefer having that responsibilty removed from their own shoulders and placed upon the shoulders of the people to whom they are reacting.
Is it just me or is the irony a little thick here..
Dave, women dressing “provocatively” is terminology for women dressing in a manner intended to attract men; I agree it’s an unfortunate usage of the stem word “provoke,” but that doesn’t really change the contextual meaning vis-a-vis intent, i.e., to attract. As for attributing what you call the “male gaze” to shame and not wishing to take responsibility, that’s just absurd. Good grief, where do you come up with this kind of stuff? The so-called “male gaze” is in the eye of beholder – Q Grrl wrote about it, so I address that below.
Q Grrrl: “Mr. Bad, you seem to have a hard time grasping the nuance between looking at a woman and staring.”
Not at all Q Grrl, I certainly do “(grasp) the nuance between looking and staring.”
“Being so obtuse is rather transparent in my book. You seem to think men stand to loose something if their social actions are criticized – yet I have not seen you articulate exactly what it is that men stand to lose by us examining their lust, their actions, or their perceptions of the female body and women’s choices.”
What do men stand to loose if we’re criticized for our thoughts or how we look at (but don’t touch) other people based on the perceptions of another person? Oh, I don’t know, how about maybe our basic civil rights? Women and the feminist men here are demanding that women be allowed to dress however they want without any consequences vis-a-vis “staring” or whatnot, which is a ridiculous stance to take. I’m fine with the being allowed to dress however you want part, but once you cross the line to making me subject to your control based on your own personal perceptions or whims of how I’m looking at you then all bets are off. Sure, it’s your right to dress how ever you want, but it’s my right to stare at you in lust, disbelief, disdain, etc., if I chose to. Further, as evil fizz correctly highlighted, there are varying standards among people re. appropriate, “provocative,” etc., dress, so an individual imposing her narrow worldview on another vis-a-vis the intentions behind the way he is looking at her is a mighty arrogant and self-important attitude to take.
But Q Grrl, tell me, what exactly do women have to loose if a man stares at her? I think most people in the world would agree that if one of the worst things you have to worry about is how guys are looking at you then you’ve not got a whole lot of real worries.
Continuing: “Without explicitly saying so, you imply that an attempt to treat women as fully human somehow decreases the humanity of men. Your default stance is the male body and male action as the status quo and delimiter of all human behavior, emotions, and morality.”
That’s complete, unaldulterated femibabble BS Q Grrl. In fact, it is me who is treating women as fully human by recognizing that as fully human beings equal to men they should take fully equal responsibility re. their contribution to the ever-present sexual dynamic that exists between normal, well-adjusted human beings. You on the other hand are infantilizing women by not allowing them to take ownership of their sexual power and the responsibility that goes along with haveing such power. Sexuality is one of the most basic parts of being human, and there’s no getting around that. Secure, well-adjusted people understand this and are not phased by a mere look, “lustful” or not, especially if they are dressed to the nines. But even if they’re not dressed to attract, a look is just a look, and given cultural and individual differences, who’s to say with 100% certainty that their interpretation of the movtivation behind that look (e.g., lust) is correct.
Come on now, Jake. Where does the reponsibility for your thoughts, feelings and actions lie, if not with you?
jaketk, it’s hard to put my finger on the delineation, but I both agree and disagree with the points you’ve made. I’ll try to explain.
I have a daughter who turned 16 last month. She’s “had a figure” for quite some time. One of the challenges we’ve had has been her desire to dress like “everybody else” vs her desire to be taken seriously and not to be gawked at. She’s gone through the phase of wanting to wear more revealing clothes to show off her figure (midriff-baring tops, baggy pants hanging off her lower hips, etc.) and all the disagreements that came with her being told that was out. She’s gone through the phase of wearing “punk” clothing to hide her figure (same baggy pants as above, but with equally baggy t-shirts that hang loosely nearly to her knees) and the subsequent disagreements. She’s also played around with wearing some nicer clothes that fit her personality and her figure very well.
What she’s told me she’s learning with this is that 1) she doesn’t like the way it feels when guys stare at her or when they have conversations with her chest, 2) she doesn’t like the way people assume she’s into drugs and things of that nature when she wears more “punk” clothing, and 3) she doesn’t like the way teenage guys react when she wears her nicer clothes. (She’s had at least one become over-dramatic, act like he was having a heart attack, and fall into a wall, simply because he thought she looked really, really good in a skirt that was halfway down her calves and a nice blouse that coordinated well with it.)
She’s learning to be more responsible with her dress because she doesn’t like guys’ reactions and because she wants to be taken seriously. But why should she, or any other girl/woman, have to endure those reactions we get from guys?
As for dressing for attention, our 15yo Armenian exchange student had an interesting experiment. For a week, she dressed in a different style every day. One day, she dressed “cowboy” – boots, jeans, button-down shirt. One day, she dressed “preppy.” One day she dressed “goth.” One day she dressed “artsy.” I don’t remember the 5th style. Each day, she was approached by people from a different group, depending upon what style she was wearing. It was an interesting lesson for her. (Now she just dresses in her own style, wanting to wear things that aren’t like what anyone else is wearing.)
What I see here is (some) men saying that they shouldn’t have to care how they make other people feel, especially because their feelings of lust are so much more important than some woman’s feelings about…anything. What’s so new about that?
Staring, in and of itself, is an aggressive act. I doesn’t matter why a man is staring at another man or at a woman. It is recognized by both parties as aggressive. The only thing that differs is how one has been socialized to respond to aggression and the ability of some men to take full advantage of that.
Further, as evil fizz correctly highlighted, there are varying standards among people re. appropriate, “provocative,” etc., dress, so an individual imposing her narrow worldview on another vis-a-vis the intentions behind the way he is looking at her is a mighty arrogant and self-important attitude to take.
and
ou on the other hand are infantilizing women by not allowing them to take ownership of their sexual power and the responsibility that goes along with haveing such power.
How about men imposing their standards of appropriate on women? I found it very interesting when friends of my on the Arabian peninsula told me that the reasoning behind some cultures there forcing women to cover so completely was that if they didn’t completely cover, the men wouldn’t be able to control themselves. That, to me, is infantilization of the men in question.
So to, arguing against the concept that men should bear the responsibility of their own reactions, no matter how the women around them are dressed, is infantilizing men. It is saying that they have no control over how they react to stimuli in their environment. One of the signs of maturity is being able to choose how we react to stimuli in our environments.
If racist thoughts go through your head when you see a young black male in gangsta/gang clothes, what do you think would happen if you stared at that young black man? What would happen if you said something to your buddies along the lines of connecting the young man’s clothes to your racist thoughts? What if a third party overheard you? What does it do to your own psyche to have racist thoughts connected to someones choice of clothing? What does it do to have these thoughts when it comes time for you to interact with the young black man? any young black men? Is the young black man responsible for your racist thoughts?
… and yes, your sexuality is *just* as conditioned as your tendancy towards or away from racism.
Q Grrl, I reject out of hand your assertion that racism is as innate as sexuality. Do you have any objective proof for this? It sounds utterly preposterous.
The scenario you describe (i.e., racist comments) is acting out on racism, so it’s not comparable to staring. Now, if the guy (or gal) had just been staring at the young black man and he went up and attacked him/her, who would be at fault? In your mind? In a court of law?
Cait, I hear you re. the Saudis and other cultures, and I agree that such cultures infantilize men (and promote the myth of female superiority vis-a-vis the value they place on women’s vs. men’s lives), but I thought that Hugo and others were emphasizing U.S. culture. At least I know that I am. But I’m not arguing that men shouldn’t be held responsible for their reactions, however, I am arguing that the standards have to be reasonable. And IMO the line is drawn when someone acts out; to me, simply looking, staring, what have you is not acting out because it’s a ridiculously simple matter for the other person to look away and ignore the stare.
Mr. Bad: What you and other here *have* successfully argued is that male lust is the litmus test for the acceptability of women’s personal choice. You have entirely framed women’s choice by whether male lust is incited or not, provoked or not, rewarded or not. The only time that you afford women personal autonomy is when you wish to “hold her accountable” for the choice she made that led to the incitement of male lust. Again, I say, you hold the male body and its emotions and reactions as the status quo. This, my friend, is the meaning of objectification from a feminist stand point. Male = subject = the active definer of social mores. Female = object = the body upon which social mores are played out. You wish not to see it, but all of your arguments point firmly to this mindset.
Staring, in and of itself, is an aggressive act. I doesn’t matter why a man is staring at another man or at a woman. It is recognized by both parties as aggressive. The only thing that differs is how one has been socialized to respond to aggression and the ability of some men to take full advantage of that.
It might be recognized by you as aggressive. That doesn’t mean that the man staring at you has aggressive motivations in mind. Unless you consider lust an act of aggression. Which it is not. You have either a very limited range of motivation you attribute to men, or an extremely wide range of motivation you consider aggression. Maybe he (she) just thinks you are attractive and wants to get to know you.
If racist thoughts go through your head when you see a young black male in gangsta/gang clothes, what do you think would happen if you stared at that young black man? What would happen if you said something to your buddies along the lines of connecting the young man’s clothes to your racist thoughts? What if a third party overheard you? What does it do to your own psyche to have racist thoughts connected to someones choice of clothing? What does it do to have these thoughts when it comes time for you to interact with the young black man? any young black men? Is the young black man responsible for your racist thoughts?
… and yes, your sexuality is *just* as conditioned as your tendancy towards or away from racism.
Now you are comparing sexuality to racism? How sad..
Slow down Mr. Bad. You say:
“Q Grrl, I reject out of hand your assertion that racism is as innate as sexuality. Do you have any objective proof for this? It sounds utterly preposterous.”
Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere did I say anything about either sexuality or racism being innate. In fact, I said the opposite.
Uzzah: what don’t you understand about me saying that staring, yes staring, in-and-of-itself, is an aggressive action REGARDLESS of intent. If someone is staring and doesn’t want to misconstrued as to motivation, the onus is on that individual, not the person interpreting the aggressive act otherwise known as staring.
>I appreciate your fairness, and I agree with the
>point you’re trying to make. I’ll say, though,
>that — just like I mentioned in the “assault”
>thread — sometimes the bigger person becomes
>the hidden victim. *snip story*
That’s awful, bmmg39 — in no way should you have had to put up with that. And you make a good general point about unwanted sexual attention; it’s not just about the physical threat — you obviously weren’t worried about psychogranny wrestling you to the ground — it’s about embarrassment, having your space invaded, etc.
This is one of the ways gender stereotypes can damage men as well — some women assume that sort of thing is okay, or only a minor indiscretion, because a “real man” is always ready and willing. Yuck.
because it’s a ridiculously simple matter for the other person to look away and ignore the stare.
Isn’t it equally simple not to stare in the first place? Yes, it’s hard not to see and acknowledge things that appear out of the ordinary, attractive, appealing, appalling, etc. But there’s a difference between seeing, acknowledging, and turning your head versus seeing, acknowledging, and continuing to stare.
mythago, I think there’s a bit of a difference in symmantics between you and Hugo WRT the term “lust.” I’m closer to agreement with Hugo’s terminology.
It’s not that lust in itself is a bad thing. It’s natural. But allowing lust to continue past the stage of acknowledging that it’s there isn’t right, for a Christian at least, unless the person for whom one is lusting is the person with whom one is in a committed relationship. (Or to go conservative, the person to whom one is married.) Outside of that context, lust goes into the realm of “Thou shalt not covet.”
Q Grrl: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for calling a spade a spade.
Mr. Bad said: “What do men stand to loose if we’re criticized for our thoughts or how we look at (but don’t touch) other people based on the perceptions of another person? Oh, I don’t know, how about maybe our basic civil rights?”
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, nobody here has proposed an anti-staring law. There’s a lot of rude behavior that can’t and shouldn’t be legislated against, but that doesn’t make it any less rude.
In fact, this is pretty much the point Hugo was making in his blog entry: “while there is no right not to be looked at, I’m not sure that means that it is always right to look!”
Mr. Bad says: “Women and the feminist men here are demanding that women be allowed to dress however they want without any consequences vis-a-vis “staring” or whatnot, which is a ridiculous stance to take.”
Yes indeed — women should be prepared to accept the consequences of dressing in anything more stylish than a burlap sack, but God forbid anybody note that staring is rude and threatening, and that people who care about how they’re affecting others should stop doing it.
You know, I have found myself accidentally “staring” at people when I’ve been lost in thought and not paying attention to where my eyes are fixed. When I catch myself doing it, which is usually when I become aware of the person glancing at me nervously or otherwise acting irritated or amused, I always try to offer some kind of non-verbal apology — an embarrassed grimace and a half-wave, a mouthed “sorry”, something — because it is an action that discomfits people. It doesn’t suddenly stop being upsetting when a man is doing it to a woman.
“But Q Grrl, tell me, what exactly do women have to loose if a man stares at her? I think most people in the world would agree that if one of the worst things you have to worry about is how guys are looking at you then you’ve not got a whole lot of real worries.”
Well, for one thing, you have to worry about whether he’s going to escalate the situation, because *staring is threatening behavior.*
Erin, there’s always the old teenage quip, “Take a picture. It’ll last longer.”
I wonder how well some of the advocates of staring as innocent, wholly non-threatening behavior would take it if the object of their stares turned around and stared back, refusing to break her gaze. Or if they were the target of persistent staring by a woman who was unattractive to them and/or large enough to do them serious damage.
Q Grrl said: “The only time that you afford women personal autonomy is when you wish to “hold her accountable” for the choice she made that led to the incitement of male lust. Again, I say, you hold the male body and its emotions and reactions as the status quo. This, my friend, is the meaning of objectification from a feminist stand point. Male = subject = the active definer of social mores. Female = object = the body upon which social mores are played out. You wish not to see it, but all of your arguments point firmly to this mindset.”
Perhaps this kind of femibabble is why most people reject feminism, because little of what you said above makes any sense whatsoever. I truly don’t understand what the heck you’re talking about.
I’ve repeatedly offered both men and women autonomy by clearly stating that both men and women are responsible for their behavior, but go even further from what I see as the predominant feminist standpoint that it is males – and only males – who must be reponsible for their behavior; I treat women like fully human and equal to men. However, I believe that it’s important to set boundaries because without boundaries people have no standards by which to judge their own and others’ behavior. In contrast, you are of the mind that ‘if a woman thinks it is, then it is,’ making boundaries impossible because for each woman and situation the boundary will be different. As for the rest of that missive, as I said, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Q Girl said: “Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere did I say anything about either sexuality or racism being innate. In fact, I said the opposite.”
Ok, I see it now – thanks for setting me straight. And in that case I reject out of hand that most sexuality is conditioned. In fact, sexuality of the kind we’re talking about – the kind that causes male arousal from visual stimuli – is one of the most basic, innate biological traits in human males. To say that it’s conditioned is absurd and counter to well-established biological theory.
Continuing: “what don’t you understand about me saying that staring, yes staring, in-and-of-itself, is an aggressive action REGARDLESS of intent. If someone is staring and doesn’t want to misconstrued as to motivation, the onus is on that individual, not the person interpreting the aggressive act otherwise known as staring.”
No is is not. Your defining staring as “an aggressive act” is a strawman argument. The onus is on both people to take responsibility for their behavior and act within the accepted boundaries our society has placed on specific, definable actions. “Staring” is not even a well-defined action, let alone “an aggressive act.”
You never answered my question re. the scenario where the gangsta goes up and assaults the man or woman who stared at him, and that’s telling because it speaks directly to the issue of boundaries that I’m trying to impress upon you. So I’ll try again, who is at fault in that scenario, the gangsta or the wo/man? And who do you think a jury of our peers would say is at fault?
Caitriona: Ha! Too true, and an excellent response that isn’t likely to escalate the situation.
Well, Mr. Bad, you seemed to think I was rude when I told the guy to “fuck off” when he was referring to all the women around him as “eye candy” so you in fact are the one creating straw-arguments. If someone is staring at the gansta, I’m all for the gansta doing what he feels necessary — including returning the aggression. I would think that would be obvious also by my “fuck off” statement/mentality.
Uzzah: what don’t you understand about me saying that staring, yes staring, in-and-of-itself, is an aggressive action REGARDLESS of intent. If someone is staring and doesn’t want to misconstrued as to motivation, the onus is on that individual, not the person interpreting the aggressive act otherwise known as staring.
I understand you fine. I just don’t agree. If someone comes up to you and asked for directions, and you consider it an aggressive act, does that in fact make it an aggressive act? No. How can that person possibly predict that you consider it aggressive? And if he did, what could he possibly do to influence that? Can he look at you and figure out that you are going to overreact? A person is not aggressive just because you think his motivations might be aggressive. (Would that we could remotely influence another’s thoughts that way).
If I were to take your statement to its logical conclusion, there could never be any paranoid people, because even though nobody is out to get them, they in fact all are, because the paranoid person thinks they are.
Sometimes a stare is just a stare. No aggressive act is intended. Now if somebody is stalking you, you have a case. You come off to me sounding like a man staring at you is in and of itself, an insult. Now maybe you are really paranoid, or insecure in public, and someone looking at you makes you uncomfortable. So be it. That doesn’t change the motivations of those that are doing the looking. And further, what might be scary to you, might not bother the next women and in fact, she might even enjoy such attention.
You make a good point though about the difference between staring and staring designed to deliberately make someone else uncomfortable. Nobody should be required to endure that, and the person doing that type of staring is out of line. But I believe we are talking about normal lust and sexual attraction here. In most cases, this is socially acceptable. So I’d like to think our disagreement is a matter of terms.
Yes indeed — women should be prepared to accept the consequences of dressing in anything more stylish than a burlap sack, but God forbid anybody note that staring is rude and threatening, and that people who care about how they’re affecting others should stop doing it.
That’s taking it to a ridiculous extreme. But yes, you don’t live in a vacuum. Do you really think you can just live in a world where your choices in dress don’t affect how others perceive you? Do you want to live in a world like that?
The wo/man is at fault for the aggressive, rude, and disrespectful action of staring; and the gangsta is at fault for reacting badly to the aggressive, rude, and disrespectful behavior of the wo/man.
We have a Dexter bull. He’s got a pretty good disposition, a Dexter trait that was a large part of our reason for going with this breed. Good disposition or no, he’s still a bull.
One day, a gentleman came by the house to talk with my husband and me. It was feeding time, so my husband was out at the barn. I invited the gentleman to go out to the barn with me, take a look at the animals, and talk with my husband.
His first reaction was, “Oh, no! You’ve got a bull, and bull’s are dangerous.”
I assured him that he’d be safe in the barnyard with our bull, that he has a good disposition. We walked out, and the bull came up close to us to see if we had his evening treats.
The visiting gentleman knelt down to look eye-to-eye with the bull. Then he reached over to grab the bull by the horns. I quickly asked him to please not do that.
You see, no matter how non-aggressive our bull is, the visitor’s actions were, albeit unknowingly, very aggressive. By looking our bull in the eye, he was offering a challenge. By reaching for our bull’s horns, he was offering a further challenge.
But if he’d been hurt by our bull due to his actions, *we* would still have been held liable.
>”Staring” is not even a well-defined action,
>let alone “an aggressive act.”
The line between looking and staring may not be the Grand Canyon, but neither is it especially fuzzy.
>You never answered my question re. the scenario
>where the gangsta goes up and assaults the man
>or woman who stared at him, and that’s telling
>because it speaks directly to the issue of
>boundaries that I’m trying to impress upon you.
>So I’ll try again, who is at fault in that
>scenario, the gangsta or the wo/man? And who do
>you think a jury of our peers would say is at
>fault?
I am not Q Grrl, but I don’t see where anybody advocated a *physical* response to being stared at. Being told to fuck off is in no way equivalent to assault.
Mr. Bad, if boundries are important and you can never know what a person’s boundries are, wouldn’t the responsible thing be to err on the side of caution and not stare at all?
Q Grrl said: “Well, Mr. Bad, you seemed to think I was rude when I told the guy to “fuck off” when he was referring to all the women around him as “eye candy” so you in fact are the one creating straw-arguments. If someone is staring at the gansta, I’m all for the gansta doing what he feels necessary — including returning the aggression. I would think that would be obvious also by my “fuck off” statement/mentality.”
Interesting. So you feel that violence is justified based on simply staring? I take it then you are not one of those people who feel that “there’s no excuse for violence against women,” right?
>You make a good point though about the
>difference between staring and staring
>designed to deliberately make someone else >uncomfortable. Nobody should be required to
>endure that, and the person doing that type
>of staring is out of line. But I believe
>we are talking about normal lust and sexual
>attraction here.
The intent doesn’t matter as much as the action, IMO. If a large man was staring at you, it might not be intended as aggression, after all — maybe it’s a gay guy checking you out.
>That’s taking it to a ridiculous extreme. But
>yes, you don’t live in a vacuum. Do you really
>think you can just live in a world where your
>choices in dress don’t affect how others
>perceive you? Do you want to live in a world
>like that?
Perceptions and actions are two different things. And yes, I would prefer a world where men didn’t feel free to treat a woman rudely if they decide that she’s a slut based on what she’s wearing.
it would, but then that would apply to all people, not just males. what i see here is an attempt to take something that unnerves most people–staring–and turn it into a women’s issue. i am still struggling with the concept that the staring is the result of lust or sexual attraction, because outside of the person making that perfectly, or having telepathy, you are simply assuming this is the case.
Uzzah said: “You make a good point though about the difference between staring and staring designed to deliberately make someone else uncomfortable. Nobody should be required to endure that, and the person doing that type of staring is out of line. But I believe we are talking about normal lust and sexual attraction here. In most cases, this is socially acceptable.”
Great point Uzzah. Again, it speaks to boundaries and reason.
And yes Mr. Lynch, you’re correct – that’s what I would do. But that doesn’t mean that I should impose my personal norms on anyone else unless and until the actions cross the boundary of physical contact.
All of this reminds me of the “Code Blue” activity that went down a couple of years ago in NYC, where angry feminists were going around harassing men who they felt “stared” at women. IMO it’s a miracle that none of those angry feminists didn’t get asses beat to a pulp, because IMO they were definitely provoking such responses from the guys, and frankly, deserved whatever they would have got.
This has been an interesting conversation and enlightening re. the tolerance and IMO totalitarian tendencies of feminists to engage in thought control. Pretty scary, Orwellian stuff.
Mr. Bad, oh how you twist. I said, clearly, “returning the aggression”. And we’re not talking about unprovoked attacks on women vis-a-vis domestic violence. I’m talking about an initial aggressive act, the interpretation of that act lacking any knowledge of intent, and a person’s right to react in kind. I’m certainly not going to wait until a man has acted beyond the initial act of staring to find out whether he has ill-intents or not. I have a right to protect both my mental and bodily integrity — men’s hurt feelings be damned. Most intelligent and aware men won’t be crossing that boundary in the first place, so you can scrap your idea that I’m painting all men with the same feminist brush.
So, Mr. Bad, only men can define what is aggressive or not? Clearly you think so. Women’s opinions (thought control?) to the contrary.
Cait, I hear you re. the Saudis and other cultures, and I agree that such cultures infantilize men (and promote the myth of female superiority vis-a-vis the value they place on women’s vs. men’s lives)
Mr. Bad, this same type of cultural standard exists within portions of the US, too. Sometimes it’s difficult to remember that we have a hodgepodge of cultural standards, which in itself contributes to the confusion. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard/read anything about “female superiority” WRT those cultures that infantilize men and insist that women cover in a fashion that would be “extreme” to most of us. AAMOF, in most that I’ve heard/read about, women are DEvalued. Is there something you’ve come across about these cultures that is different?
jaketk said:
>it would, but then that would apply to all
>people, not just males. what i see here is
>an attempt to take something that unnerves
>most people–staring–and turn it into a
>women’s issue.
It isn’t inherently a women’s issue, but it starts to become so when, as some individuals have argued in this thread, staring should no longer be considered aggressive when it’s directed at a woman by a man.
I have a right to protect both my mental and bodily integrity — men’s hurt feelings be damned. Most intelligent and aware men won’t be crossing that boundary in the first place, so you can scrap your idea that I’m painting all men with the same feminist brush.
but that is sort of what you are doing. you are assuming that men mean something agressive by staring at you, which is not always, or even mostly, true. it is rude and it is unnerving (as it is when women stare at people), but i think you are jumping to the worst possible conclusions.
Q Grrl said: “I have a right to protect both my mental and bodily integrity — men’s hurt feelings be damned. Most intelligent and aware men won’t be crossing that boundary in the first place, so you can scrap your idea that I’m painting all men with the same feminist brush.”
jaketk said: “but that is sort of what you are doing. you are assuming that men mean something agressive by staring at you, which is not always, or even mostly, true. it is rude and it is unnerving (as it is when women stare at people), but i think you are jumping to the worst possible conclusions.”
The problem is, if a woman later gets bothered or followed or harmed by the starer — not always likely, but it happens — and says, “I saw he was staring at me, but I didn’t want to offend anybody,” she gets jumped on for not having protected herself, been more careful, etc. No way to win at this game.
Jaketk: men have more than proven their penchant and ability to rape women. Why wouldn’t I jump to the worst possible conclusion?
Going to go out on a limb here and say that the intent of the starer is immaterial. What matters is the *perception*. (Not the perception of someone who’s insanely paranoid, but a reasonable person in the legal sense of a word.) If I am swinging my fists, it is wholly immaterial to the person who punches me in response whether or not I intended to hit him or whether I intended to stretch in an unconventional way. A reasonable person would have seen the arm swinging as threatening.
I’d also like to point out that in order to claim self defense in a legal sense, the force used must be proportional to the harm perceived. Hence, if you feel threatened by someone staring, it’s completely appropriate to tell them to knock it off. It’s not appropriate to smack them across the face and force them to avert their eyes.
men have more than proven their penchant and ability to rape women. Why wouldn’t I jump to the worst possible conclusion?
women have more than proven their penchant and ability to murder and abuse children.
my question is what relevance does this have with being stared at?
in the vast majority of instances, no one is going to attack you. and considering we are talking about strangers, men face a far greater risk of being assaulted than women do. so the only issue i can possibly see is that you are trying to equate staring to rape (applicable only to women). am i right?
Going to go out on a limb here and say that the intent of the starer is immaterial. What matters is the *perception*. (Not the perception of someone who’s insanely paranoid, but a reasonable person in the legal sense of a word.)
reasonable, even in the legal sense, is still highly subjective. and that is not even factoring in this would probably be a jury trial.
but since you are basing this on perceptions, i would like to offer an example. my cousin was sexually assaulted, and i am highly protective of him. i am especially aware of women who stare at him. often times, their body language suggests that they are attracted to him; btw he is 13. should a woman continuously stare at him, even after i have told her not to, is it reasonable for me to then assault her in protection of my cousin? is it reasonable for me to assume she would be a child molster and/or pedophile, given my history with such people, particularly with women?
Actually, the reasonable person standard is considered “objective” because it considers someone in the comparable position to the actor. “Subjective” legal standards are the ones that rely on the actor’s own perceptions. (I know, semantic quibble, but I wanted to point it out.)
is it reasonable for me to then assault her in protection of my cousin? If you believe that she poses an iminent threat to your cousin, yes.
is it reasonable for me to assume she would be a child molster and/or pedophile, given my history with such people, particularly with women? I’d vote no to such an extreme characterization, but I’d vote yes to putting a check mark in the “freaky person without reasonable sense of social boundaries who I should keep my distance from” column.
Not to delve into a personal issue, but does your cousin look 13? Because any stranger (male or female) who is constantly staring at a child raises all sorts of red flags for me. Getting back to the issue of “is staring inherently aggressive” I think it can easily look predatory and this is one set of circumstances where I’d personally be inclined to assume the worst.
This is a response to a very old post on this thread, but I’ve been away for a few days. If you really think this it is uncommon for a woman to be leered at, catcalled, or otherwise harassed on the street, or if you think it only happens to certain women wearing certain things, check out
http://www.streetharassmentproject.org
When you hear occasional stories about street harassment from women in your life, or if you only hear them from faceless people posting here, it’s easy to say to yourself that the stories may be untrue, and that women are overreacting, but when faced with the sheer numbers of stories on this site, it’s a bit harder so delude yourself into believing that street harassment is no big deal.
No one seems to be denying the fact that one man staring at another man is likely to be taken as a sign of at least the potential for physical aggression. In addition, staring is a signal of dominance aggression in most mammals, including all apes. One excellent way to get attacked by an aggressive dog is to look it directly in the eyes and not break contact.
Almost to a species, mammalian social structures from dogs to cattle to chimps to, yes, humans, are mediated by who stares and who looks away. Though it’s impossible to know how it works for gorillas or lions, human women are, by and large, taught to look away as a means of deflecting potential conflict or confrontation.
What is the point in making the argument that staring is not aggressive? When the slightly odd person at the bus stop stares at you, it’s creepy. When a person you find threatening won’t stop obviously looking at you, it can be terrifying. So why would you make an argument that it’s different in a general situation; that women should not interpret an aggressive signal (a man’s stare) as aggressive or dominating, but instead as value-neutral, or even flattering? There are certainly ways of looking at another person that can signal attraction, invitation, friendliness, and even physical appreciation that don’t involve staring. If I don’t know the person doing the staring, and in the absence of the sort of “oops, I was daydreaming” body language mentioned above, I will consider it intimidating.
Also: I hear you re. the Saudis and other cultures, and I agree that such cultures infantilize men (and promote the myth of female superiority vis-a-vis the value they place on women’s vs. men’s lives)
Are you saying that you believe that Saudi culture places a higher premium on the lives of women than it does men? That’s not a position I’ve heard before, and I’d be interested to know what makes you say that.
Jake,
You have hit the nail on the head, but not in the way you would have liked. Your cousin, after his experience, probably feels vulnerable to aggression. This is the world women live in every day of our lives. Men on average are bigger, stronger, and faster than we are. An unwanted, lustful stare reminds us that we are vulnerable at any time to attack. Differentiating between aggressive and nonaggressive stares are what we have to do to ensure our safety. Of course, not every jerk that licks his lips while talking to my chest is going to rape me, but I would rather be safe than sorry.
I don’t think that anyone is advocating physical assault. This, in response to such a look, is clearly a criminal act. However so, the person needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptible. Tact is always the best course in this matter, but sometimes it can be rather insufficient. Therefore, an amount of public humiliation such as “fuck off” can be warranted in some cases. In the few times I have had to employ this (though not as extreme), there was absolutely no question in my mind that they were trying to intimidate me. Stares can do that sometimes.
Oh, and after reading a few of these posts, I have decided to go around naked. Because wearing anything that I have in my wardrobe is sending too many unconscious signals. Or will this too send a signal? Can’t win.
Erin >> The problem is, if a woman later gets bothered or followed or harmed by the starer — not always likely, but it happens — and says, “I saw he was staring at me, but I didn’t want to offend anybody,” she gets jumped on for not having protected herself, been more careful, etc. No way to win at this game.
So basically you are scared when any men stare at you, because of the remote possibility that someone might follow up the staring with violent behavior? You get “offended” as a proactive measure and are consistent with it because of the fear of being a victim of the blame game. I bet you are a lot of fun at a party.
Qgrrl>>Jaketk: men have more than proven their penchant and ability to rape women. Why wouldn’t I jump to the worst possible conclusion?
I was robbed by a black man, so blacks have more than proven their penchent and ability to steal. Why should’t I jump to the worst possible conclusion about blacks?
Damn, I think I’m going to like you.. That’s even more insulting than my usual stuff.
Assuming neither of you are married, let me ask both of you this. Since both of you are attractive, guys (and gals) are probably looking at you two all the time. Let’s say one guy is this hot type that you really think is attractive and he’s giving you the look. But you look past him and there is this dumpy looking guy with glasses looking at you and smiling. Who offends you most?
jaketk says: “should a woman continuously stare at him, even after i have told her not to, is it reasonable for me to then assault her in protection of my cousin? is it reasonable for me to assume she would be a child molster and/or pedophile, given my history with such people, particularly with women?”
I believe Q Grrl already clarified that she didn’t mean assault when she talked about returning the aggression, and I agree with the folks who said returning rudeness with fisticuffs is uncalled for regardless of which sexes are involved, but I think it’d be perfectly appropriate to tell the woman to cut it the hell out. As for it crossing your mind that she’s a child molestor, I think it might be unrealistic but understandable given your history, and as another poster said, deciding that she’s a creepy person with iffy boundaries would be no more than going on the evidence you’re given.
Let’s say one guy is this hot type that you really think is attractive and he’s giving you the look. But you look past him and there is this dumpy looking guy with glasses looking at you and smiling. Who offends you most?
Wow, that’s such a softball question that I’m going to answer it, even though it wasn’t addressed to me. A guy who is giving me a dominating, aggressive stare is not attractive, and I don’t care what shape his body is. Looking like a creep who wants to rape me is a major turn-off, and will earn the guy nothing but a big “fuck you”. A dumpy guy who treats me like a human being and not a piece of meat, OTOH, will get treated like a human being in return. Which is not to say that I automatically have sex with any male just for being “nice”, but I tend to be a lot kinder about turning people down if they don’t act like entitled assholes.
Any more easy questions?
Uzzah says: “So basically you are scared when any men stare at you, because of the remote possibility that someone might follow up the staring with violent behavior? You get “offended” as a proactive measure and are consistent with it because of the fear of being a victim of the blame game. I bet you are a lot of fun at a party.”
I’m rather an introvert, actually — I’m not a partier, and I don’t hang out in many social situations where there are men I don’t know, so it doesn’t come up very often.
Before you boggle too much at the notion that a woman would be scared in such a situation, I think you may not realize how often we’re exhorted not to walk alone after dark, not to get in elevators with a strange man, not to leave our drinks unattended, not to drink where there are men we don’t know, don’t go up to a guy’s apartment unless we’re willing to go all the way, etc. The fear is drilled in from a young age, and a lot of women have experiences to back up the fear. I don’t assume or believe that most men mean me harm, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the caution is excessive, but I also know that if I *was* to get hurt while taking one of those risks, real or imagined, I could very well get more scorn than support beyond a relatively narrow circle.
“Assuming neither of you are married, let me ask both of you this. Since both of you are attractive,”
You obviously didn’t read my previous contributions to the thread. I’m a fat girl whose sense of fashion consists of jeans/khakis and loose t-shirts. However much Mr. Bad might like to make this about feminists’ supposed vanity, I’m well aware that most guys don’t find me attractive.
“Let’s say one guy is this hot type that you really think is attractive and he’s giving you the look. But you look past him and there is this dumpy looking guy with glasses looking at you and smiling. Who offends you most?”
Due to past baggage, my knee-jerk reaction would be fear that the attractive guy was gearing up to make a fool of me in some way; that’s not fair, though, as a considered judgment. You’d probably do better assuming I’d be more receptive to the dumpy guy — that’s more my speed. Seriously, it’s unlikely I’d be offended by a look, lustful or otherwise — quite the opposite. If a guy was actually staring at me but looked away when I noticed where his gaze was directed, I wouldn’t be fussed. If I was the object of persistent staring, however, that would seriously freak me out regardless of the guy’s attractiveness.
These days if I’m going to be stared at, it’s at the mall or when I’m out on my daily walk. (I’m more likely to have things shouted at me — not often, but enough, and I live in an upper middle class suburb.) And yes, it makes me nervous.
i>Wow, that’s such a softball question that I’m going to answer it, even though it wasn’t addressed to me. A guy who is giving me a dominating, aggressive stare is not attractive, and I don’t care what shape his body is. Looking like a creep who wants to rape me is a major turn-off, and will earn the guy nothing but a big “fuck you”.
Thanks Jenny. I guess what I’m genuinely interested in , is this ambiguous response I’ve been seeing that defines what an aggressive stare as opposed to a non threatening stare that indicates “interest”. How is the female response to the stare shaped by the level of desirability (for lack of a better term) of the man doing the staring. Its easy to say the appearance of the man doesn’t have anything to do with it, but does it really? Erin, your response surprised me. But, being on the low end of the beauty scale myself, it should have been more obvious to me.
Before you boggle too much at the notion that a woman would be scared in such a situation, I think you may not realize how often we’re exhorted not to walk alone after dark, not to get in elevators with a strange man, not to leave our drinks unattended, not to drink where there are men we don’t know, don’t go up to a guy’s apartment unless we’re willing to go all the way, etc.
I’ve been married for 25 years and think sometimes I understand that uneasyness. But at 6’5 / 250lbs I am smart enough to realize I will never know that type of fear. It bothers me a lot when I see a woman let that fear totally rule her life. My wife, is cautious, and certain things trigger that “fear”. Other times, she’s absolutely bulletproof otherwise. I don’t pretend to understand that type of deeply ingrained fear. Fear we learn from childhood. The media doesn’t do much to reassure people. All there seems to be on the news is sensational crime. All this, even though crime rates are lowest they have been in decades. But fear is a unpleasant thing. How do you think the Patriarchy ™ got it’s start? (:>)
And I think I understand the reaction of women here that wish to discourage the scary type of leer. Too much of this thread has been tied into the ambiguity of the “stare”. I think we all recognize the difference in harmless looking stares and “Looking like a creep who wants to rape me ” leers although I haven’t seen a firm “dividing line” (if there is one) into what constitutes the latter. What is it to you, that makes that leer more unsettling than say a stare that is less threatening. What triggers your apprehension?
Duration is a pretty easy way to judge the creepiness of a stare. There’s a big difference between a glance (even when you notice it) and a lengthy stare.
And no, attractiveness does not detract from the creepiness factor.
Mr Bad, as others have pointed out, leering and making comments IS clearcut, unambiguous action. It’s an invasion of another person’s space.
I actually encountered a perfect example today of why the idea that women who are “provocatively” dressed are sending a signal that they want to be leered at. I sat next to a teenaged Japanese girl on the train. She was wearining what many might consider to be “provocative” clothing – leather miniskirt, fishnets, pointy high-heeled boots. Many men might have interpreted her clothing as provocative, as an invitation to stare, or as an attempt to provoke lust (what one guy above decribed as wanting guys to “swell” when they see you). However, I chatted to her a little and I’m pretty sure that no such “message” was intended. The leather, the fishnets etc weren’t intended to provoke random men, they were intended to broadcast membership in a particular subculture (in this case goth) to others who identify with the same subculture. I sometimes dressed much the same way at her age, and in retrospect I was indeed sending a message, but the message wasn’t “don’t you want to @@#$ me?”, it was “I’m a goth…if you are too then come talk to me”.
Other than the basic issue of it being ill-mannered, one of the main problems with the idea that women are sending “messages” indicating that they want to be stared at or hit on is that even if the person really IS sending a message, that’s no guarantee that the person feeling the urge to leer is interpreting that message correctly. Well, that and the fact that if you want to know what a person is trying to say it might be wiser to ASK them rather than simply making assumptions.
The idea that the person being stared at should just ignore it is pretty bogus. Staring is threatening – as someone else pointed out, how does the person being stared at know whether or not the starer will stop there? Ignoring people who engage in staring sometimes results in them escalating the situation to verbal harrassment, or even grabbing the person they were staring at if they try to just walk away.
Also, looking away and “keeping your head down” is a clearcut sign of submission. Look at a pack of wolves, or even domestic dogs, some time and watch what happens when there’s a staredown. The weaker party backs down and slinks away with tail between legs. That’s essentially what the “just ignore it if you don’t like it” advocates are suggesting that the person being stared at do. Why should they have to?
The staring and leering and catcalling is a pretty obvious dominance and submission game, IMO. It’s standard mammalian behaviour. Humans, however, have conciousness and are capable of regulating their baser insincts, and living in a society frequently requires us to do so. Why should the basic rules of human interaction be suspended in this particular scenario?
Which once again brings us back to the core of this argument. We all have instincts and natural responses to stimuli, but we are also capable of controlling our behaviour. It has been made abundantly clear that most women dislike being stared at, as indeed so most men. I’m not seeing any good reason why there should be a special exemption to the “don’t stare, it’s rude” rule for cases where a man sees a sexy woman. If you think that there should be what you’re basically saying is that the feelings of the women being stared at don’t matter. No-one should be surprised that most women are unlikely to agree.
Also, Uzzah asked “What is it to you, that makes that leer more unsettling than say a stare that is less threatening. What triggers your apprehension?”
Well, I’d say that any stare (as in more than a glance, a person looking persistently for a longer period of time than is usual between strangers) is a little discomfiting. For me, I think what really sets off alarms is when I deliberately respond in a discouraging manner (scowling, refusing to make eye contact, moving away from the person) and they don’t back off, they just keep staring. I’ve often been told that I have the proverbial face you can read like a book, and if I’m giving someone an unfriendly look my feelings tend to be very clear. If a person ignores my “back off” signals then I start to wonder what other boundaries they might feel free to ignore. It indicates that they don’t care that they’re making me uncomfortable or frightened. Such people are dangerous.
As to the question of whether it matters if the person staring is attractive – not at all. I have an acquaintance who leers at women, including me, in a very obvious manner. He visibly gets a kick out of making people uncomfortable – the more unhappy they look, the more he smirks (he sometimes does a similar thing to other men in a non-sexual way, tries to stare them down in an aggressive manner). On a purely physical level he’s one of the prettiest people I know, but his pretty face doesn’t make the leering any less threatening or unpleasant. Interestingly enough, every women I know thinks that he’s physically attractive but not one wants to date him, and most go out of their way to avoid ever being alone with him. I think that in general people are quite good at identifying other people who are aggressive and/or a threat to them by observing the person’s body language, and persistent staring/leering is clearly aggressive body language, and interpreted by most people as such.
Jake,
You have hit the nail on the head, but not in the way you would have liked. Your cousin, after his experience, probably feels vulnerable to aggression. This is the world women live in every day of our lives. Men on average are bigger, stronger, and faster than we are. An unwanted, lustful stare reminds us that we are vulnerable at any time to attack. Differentiating between aggressive and nonaggressive stares are what we have to do to ensure our safety. Of course, not every jerk that licks his lips while talking to my chest is going to rape me, but I would rather be safe than sorry.
the same dangers face men, and men are statistically more vunerable to assault, particularly stranger assault, than women. again, i think the issue of staring is being turned into a women’s issue when it is fairly clear that men face the same dangers, from both other males and females. and again, one can perceive whatever one wishes, but that does not mean one’s perceptions are the truth. for instance, how many times have you assumed a person was staring at you, or even talking to you, when he was not?
evil fizz: “I’d vote no to such an extreme characterization, but I’d vote yes to putting a check mark in the “freaky person without reasonable sense of social boundaries who I should keep my distance from” column.”
as would i. however, the assumption that men who stare are rapists, or potential rapists, is also an extreme characterization. sure, people who stare and don’t stop even after you’ve given them the “evil eye” are freaky and creepy, but that does not mean they are rapists. but there appears to be a lot of people jumping to that conclusion.
“Not to delve into a personal issue, but does your cousin look 13?”
he looks about 10-ish. but even if he looked older, my first response to any adult staring at him would be “get your perv eyes off him.” it’s a knee-jerk response, and i know that it is unfair to jump to that conclusion without good reason, which i why i pay attention to people’s body language before i say anything to them.
BritGirlSF: “I sat next to a teenaged Japanese girl on the train. She was wearining what many might consider to be “provocative” clothing – leather miniskirt, fishnets, pointy high-heeled boots. Many men might have interpreted her clothing as provocative, as an invitation to stare, or as an attempt to provoke lust… However, I chatted to her a little and I’m pretty sure that no such “message” was intended. The leather, the fishnets etc weren’t intended to provoke random men, they were intended to broadcast membership in a particular subculture (in this case goth) to others who identify with the same subculture.”
people are going to stare at her anyway because the goth subculture is “strange” and “different” to most people. the problem is how do you know that the men, and only the men, are staring because they find her attractive? couldn’t they be put off by her style of dress? couldn’t they assume she’s got “issues”? (i’ve actually had a teacher say that about people who were into goth.) and here’s the thing: she IS broadcasting that people should look, hence the reason she is dressed in that fashion. the problem is that in doing so, you often attract people you would rather not have looking at you. i hate to repeat myself, but i cannot stress this point enough: this is not unique to women. males go through the same thing. and men aren’t the only ones who stare. so why turn this into a women’s issue when it clearly isn’t one?
What triggers your apprehension?
Mythago and BritGirlSF have hit the major points: staring for a long time, and unresponsiveness to “back off” cues. I also feel more threatened by guys who manage to stare persistently from above eye level. So I suppose tall guys are at a slight disadvantage in that regard. Still, I read most tall guys as neutral; it’s only when they’ve started with the creepy behavior that the disadvantage kicks in.
jake, men do have to be concerned about violence from other men, but it’s simply not true that men are subject to the same level of sexual aggression that women receive. You’re also forgetting that women are blamed if they did not predict, and attempt to avoid, sexual aggression, at the same time they are expected to be warm and friendly.
I’d recommend that anyone who hasn’t read Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear–it’s an excellent primer, for men AND women, on dealing with the threat of aggression and sexual violence.
Which once again brings us back to the core of this argument. We all have instincts and natural responses to stimuli, but we are also capable of controlling our behaviour. It has been made abundantly clear that most women dislike being stared at, as indeed so most men. I’m not seeing any good reason why there should be a special exemption to the “don’t stare, it’s rude” rule for cases where a man sees a sexy woman. If you think that there should be what you’re basically saying is that the feelings of the women being stared at don’t matter. No-one should be surprised that most women are unlikely to agree.
Again, it’s a matter of semantics. I think a lot of stares are part and parcel of the way men and women play the dating game. Back in the day, when a man was in a social situation where he could expect to meet women of interest, he might initiate first contact with a woman by simply making eye contact with her. Hence the question in my mind about whether that “stare†would be appropriate in that setting or not. It seems to me the level at which eye contact becomes unsettling varies from woman to woman, and I would think varies on how receptive the woman is to meeting that particular man.
But the stare in the context of this thread seems to have all sorts of different connotations to different people. So a man that is trying to meet a particular woman has to make damn sure he is not sending threatening “signalsâ€. I think most men fall in this category. That is, its not an aggressive/dominating act. So taking into account the nature of women’s feelings of vulnerability, it makes it imperative that men (assuming he wishes to meet her and not “creep her out†) are fully aware of those signals that might make a person feel uncomfortable.
As for the lust issue. You are never going to eliminate lust, nor do most people comfortable with their sexuality really want to. But most religions call for self monitoring and control of our behavior. The fact that we are all imperfect creatures is the basis for most religions. We are expected to look at those faults and try “control our behaviorâ€. Out of line behavior cannot be excused by blaming it on biology. But women must also accept responsibility for how their behavior can aggravate this problem.
But women must also accept responsibility for how their behavior can aggravate this problem
How does women’s behavior affect a man’s decision about whether he will behave appropriately?
I don’t think the difference between making eye contact, and prolonged gazing beyond that which our culture normally considers acceptable betweeen strangers, is really “semantics”. Of course there are people who cross that line unwittingly, because they are not familiar with the culture, or have a disability that makes understanding and following social norms difficult.
Gay male urban culture has something called ‘cruising,’ which is, bluntly, staring. The interesting thing about cruising is that it’s assumed that the ‘cruise-ee’ is free to blatantly and openly treat the stare as a come-on, and to reject it. There’s no implied threat or social code that demands the cruise-ee pretend nothing is happening, or that rejection is impolite or bitchy. It’s also expected that if the ‘cruiser’s’ stare is not immediately reciprocated, that he should accept the rejection and walk away.
This doesn’t work so well in heterosexual society because yes, women do perceive an implied threat (often correctly), and there is no social code whereas a single rejection is to be immediately and permanently accepted.
Nonetheless, women who object to being looked at have the ability to look away and ignore the gaze if they choose. Assuming women are capable of making choices, of course.
So, it seems to me that staring is rude, aggressive behavior. Boy-girl staring, girl-girl staring, girl-boy staring, boy-boy staring. All possible variations. How about if we all avoid doing it, even when we find someone attractive? Plus it can hurt the feelings of someone else who you are with if you are paying attention to someone else who is not them. Those of us who care about the feelings of people other than ourselves, certainly Christians are called to be this way, but many people care about others, even those they don’t know personally, regardless of faith tradition. This is basic manners, I think, making everyone around you as comfortable as possible. I believe we should all aim for being well-mannered, and I also think using profanity in public is rude and at times aggressive, depending on the profanity. A whispered “Shit!” when you drop your coffee down your shirt, as opposed to yelling “Shit!” when someone bumps you on a crowded street. So, removing this discussion completely from the whole “male gaze” thing for a moment, rude and aggressive behavior is undesirable and can have less than favorable consequences, so men and women should, if they choose to live together with others in society, avoid such undesirable behavior. Would it really be so hard for anyone on this discussion to refrain from staring? Or profanity in public? This particular point just seems like one that is ridiculous to argue.
Now, Anna, there you go talking sense. How dare you expect all of us to exercise civility and courtesy!
Anna rocks. Just sayin’.
Bah, she’s clearly trying to feminize and emasculate men by forcing them to behave just like women under ths guise of this namby-pamby “manners” thing.
But women must also accept responsibility for how their behavior can aggravate this problem
How does women’s behavior affect a man’s decision about whether he will behave appropriately?
I guess there is no convincing you that the way you dress affects those around you. I’m not saying that men are off the hook for their bad behavior. Just that women are encouraging this behavior by dressing inappropriately.
Tell you what, Myth. Next time you go to court, dress in shorts and a sweatshirt. See what effect it has on the judge. Like men, your choice of dress will affect the judge (and a jury) in undesirable ways. But I guess, his bad behavior will be all his fault too. Right?
You can’t have it both ways. People want to dress to make impressions on people, yet you want to deny any responsibility for what impressions those choices make.
Dress professionally, people treat you professionally. Dress like a slob, people will treat you like a slob. Dress like a ho.. well don’t be surprised if people (not just men) treat you like one.
I guess there is no convincing you that the way you dress affects those around you.
When did I say that dress does not affect those around you? All I’m saying is that “those around you” have a choice as to how they react. Choosing to react to a woman one feels is too-revealingly dressed by making sexual comments or advances to her is not polite, appropriate, or something that is justified by saying “Look at how she’s dressed!”
(Besides, if she really is ‘asking for’ that attention, why are you giving it to her?)
I’m not saying that men are off the hook for their bad behavior.
You just did. “Dress like a ho.. well don’t be surprised if people (not just men) treat you like one”…what else does that mean, except that the blame for bad behavior falls on the woman who “dresses like a ho”?
You’re also pretending that dress codes are universal. In court, for example, you would be asked to leave if you weren’t wearing a tie. Does that mean that if I see you at the grocery store without a tie, that you shouldn’t be surprised if people (not just women) walked up to you and berated you for being unprofessional and a slob? Aren’t you encouraging that harassment by not wearing a tie everywhere you go?
Nobody is saying that there is no such thing as inappropriate dress. Nobody is saying that if a woman shows up at a dignified funeral in a G-string and a crop top, that she should be treated as if she were dressed appropriately. These are in a different category than excusing rude and obnoxious behavior.
You’re also ignoring that ‘ho’ is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder.
I guess there is no convincing you that the way you dress affects those around you. I’m not saying that men are off the hook for their bad behavior. Just that women are encouraging this behavior by dressing inappropriately.
Which pretty much reads like “She started it! I wouldn’t have had to act badly if she hadn’t provoked me!” Please. Just because someone is dressed in a particular way does not mean you don’t have a choice in not responding.
In this same vein: Nonetheless, women who object to being looked at have the ability to look away and ignore the gaze if they choose.
Certainly, women can look away, but that avoids the point, which is that they shouldn’t be subjected to such behavior in the first place. Leaving aside the issue of criminality, it’s rude and inappropriate.
Leaving aside the issue of gender, Anna is absolutely right when she says it’s about manners. Respect, manners, and all the golden rule stuff they teach you in kindegarten apply here.
Dress professionally, people treat you professionally. Dress like a slob, people will treat you like a slob. Dress like a ho.. well don’t be surprised if people (not just men) treat you like one.
I don’t understand this. Multiple times on this thread alone, women have mentioned that they have been wearing short skirts, long skirts, yoga pants, sweatpants, normal pants…pretty much every type of leg-covering clothing available to American women, and they get treated like “a ho.” Please, I would really like to know, what sort of clothing does not get a woman treated like a ho?
I don’t understand this. Multiple times on this thread alone, women have mentioned that they have been wearing short skirts, long skirts, yoga pants, sweatpants, normal pants…pretty much every type of leg-covering clothing available to American women, and they get treated like “a ho.” Please, I would really like to know, what sort of clothing does not get a woman treated like a ho?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the cloths. Maybe some people are just assholes that treat women (and others) poorly. And possibly, there are women that “act like ho’s” that get the treatment regardless of dress. Yes, not only does your choice in cloths affect how people treat you, but also how you act towards them and how you carry yourself in public. It’s a cruel and unfair world out there. But there you are.
Either case in my opinion is wrong.
I try to treat people respectfully regardless of their dress. It’s unfortunate, but when people first meet you, their only way to “estimate” you is by visual appearance. “Dress for success” is a pretty valid phrase in the business world. People tend to pre-judge you without actually knowing you and the only way they can is by your appearance.
Again, that doesn’t give them the right to invade your space or treat you disrespectfully. If they do, you have every right to punch their ticket.
But how is “punch(ing) their ticket” going to show more people how to treat others with respect?
But how is “punch(ing) their ticket” going to show more people how to treat others with respect?
By discouraging bad behavior thru negative reinforcement. :>)
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of WWII::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people.
They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
god is evil because of money.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.
But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help me.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, market domination being one clue, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil (disfavored).
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no hope.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
It was set up this way. Perhaps dyanstic thrones had a say, but maybe not.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ. I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians and cooperating Jews who attack “god’s” most favored people will pay for it dearly one day.
jake, men do have to be concerned about violence from other men, but it’s simply not true that men are subject to the same level of sexual aggression that women receive. You’re also forgetting that women are blamed if they did not predict, and attempt to avoid, sexual aggression, at the same time they are expected to be warm and friendly.
men also have to be concerned abou violence from women as well. however, again you are jumping to the conclusion that men who stare are being “sexually agressive” without any evidence other than a male is staring at a female (which also should apply in the reverse). that is a rather broad jump, and it says more about your perceptions than it does as to why the man is actually staring. and you are also forgetting that men are blamed when they do not predict or attempt to avoid aggression, and at the same time they are expected to be approachable and courteous.
I don’t understand this. Multiple times on this thread alone, women have mentioned that they have been wearing short skirts, long skirts, yoga pants, sweatpants, normal pants…pretty much every type of leg-covering clothing available to American women, and they get treated like “a ho.” Please, I would really like to know, what sort of clothing does not get a woman treated like a ho?
i think the point you are missing is that none of that is unique to women. everyone faces that sort of judgement, and in certain cases, one’s dress can cause others to assume rather outlandish things.
no offense, but i do not see this as a women’s issue. staring in and of itself is considered rude and people, not just men, should not stare. pretending women are at a greater risk truly strikes me as a veil for “all men are rapists”. if that is what this is about, then just say it. if not, this really is not a problem unique to women, and it is highly dishonest to suggest that it is.
jaketk: and how exactly are women to know which men are rapists and which aren’t? Hell, it’s my body. I get to determine, for myself, who I think is threatening. It isn’t up to you with your pooh-poohing of women’s narratives to decide *for us* who is and who isn’t a threat — or worse yet, your rather patronizing attitude that we shouldn’t find staring aggressive/threatening, ’cause gosh, gee, golly, men get stared at too. Rape is unique to women in this country in how often it occurs to women, how it is used to socialized girls, and in the fact that the predominant number of rapists are men who rape women. If you don’t like that, talk to the men who are raping. Don’t get your panties in a wad because *some* women don’t mind calling men out on their shit and refuse to play along in your little rape society fantasies. How many times can the women here tell you that *we* find staring to be aggressive, and then it gets brushed off as a semantics issue. Yet when I told the one guy to “fuck off” that was considered a (shocker!) rude thing to do. Why didn’t you just apply your inane semantics rule to my actions? Your fear of women couldn’t be any more transparent.
Q Grrl, what I find deliciously ironic is that feminsits like you want us guys to consider your ilk to be “strong, powerful, capable” yadda yadda yadda, when in fact at the same time apparently a simple stare is enough to cause you crippling fear, panic, etc.
Are we supposed to be confident that such women are capable, competent and inspiring leaders? What would happen at the negotiating table, boardroom, front lines, etc., if an opponent whipped-out his secret weapon, the ever-sinister Man Gaze(TM)?
Stong? Powerful? Inspiring? Yeah, right. You go tough girl.
Q grrl: and how exactly are whites to know which blacks are thieves and murders, and which aren’t? Hell, it’s my body. I get to determine, for myself, who I think is threatening. It isn’t up to you with your pooh-poohing of white’s narratives to decide *for us* who is and who isn’t a threat — or worse yet, your rather patronizing attitude that we shouldn’t find staring aggressive/threatening, ’cause gosh, gee, golly, blacks get stared at too. Violent crimes are unique to whites in this country in how often it occurs to whites, and in the fact that the predominant number of thieves and murderers are blacks who assault whites. If you don’t like that, talk to the blacks who are commiting. Don’t get your panties in a wad because *some* whites don’t mind calling blacks out on their shit and refuse to play along in your little afrocentric society fantasies. How many times can the whites here tell you that *we* find staring to be aggressive, and then it gets brushed off as a semantics issue. Yet when I told the one black to “fuck off” that was considered a (shocker!) rude thing to do. Why didn’t you just apply your inane semantics rule to my actions? Your fear of whites couldn’t be any more transparent.
or
Q grrl: and how exactly are men to know which women are pedophiles and child murders, and which aren’t? Hell, it’s my body, my cousin’s body, and my 5 year old godson’s body. I get to determine, for myself, who I think is threatening. It isn’t up to you with your pooh-poohing of men’s narratives to decide *for us* who is and who isn’t a threat — or worse yet, your rather patronizing attitude that we shouldn’t find staring aggressive/threatening, ’cause gosh, gee, golly, women get stared at too. Abuse is unique to males in this country in how often it occurs to males, how it is defended when it is done to males, and in the fact that the predominant number of child murderers, and a significant amount of pedophiles, are women who abuse males. If you don’t like that, talk to the women who are raping, abusing, and murderering. Don’t get your panties in a wad because *some* men don’t mind calling women out on their shit and refuse to play along in your little child-raping, feminist-society fantasies. How many times can the men here tell you that *we* find staring to be aggressive, and then it gets brushed off as a semantics issue. Yet when I told the one girl to “fuck off” that was considered a (shocker!) rude thing to do. Why didn’t you just apply your inane semantics rule to my actions? Your fear of men couldn’t be any more transparent.
amazing, isn’t it?
Jake and Q Grrl, phrases like “panties in a wad” will get you banned very fast. So too, Mr. Bad, will phrases like “tough girl” at the end of your last post.
i think the point you are missing is that none of that is unique to women. everyone faces that sort of judgement, and in certain cases, one’s dress can cause others to assume rather outlandish things.
Jaketk, I’m interested in hearing how often you get read as a “ho” for wearing clothes that fail to completely conceal the shape of your body. As several other commentors have pointed out, men are often happy to assume that a woman is a “ho” if, after thorough and careful investigation, they can manage to discern a breast through her shirt. Even when dressed in super-baggy clothes, I’ve gotten all manner of unwelcome speculation from strange men about my breasts, whether I was wearing a bra, what kind of bra I was wearing, etc., etc., etc. Do you deal with unwelcome sexual comments on a regular basis when you ride the bus or walk home from work? If you did, you might get a little tetchy when people stared at you intensely.
Perhaps, by looking too confident, or by not completely eradicating every last bit of sway from my hips, I am “acting like a ho”, as Uzzah suggests women may. But you know what? At some point it just becomes not my freakin’ problem to make sure that men don’t think I’m a ho. But you know what? I bet you don’t have to deal with the question, when you’re picking out an outfit. Because if you don’t wear tight jeans and a muscle shirt, you’re pretty much all set, and don’t have to worry about being perceived as sexual.
Mr. Bad, stares and harassment do not cause me crippling fear. But they do make me uncomfortable, and I am well within my rights to ask that people mind their own business, not stare, and not make lewd comments. I’m also well within my rights to swear at harassers, because they’re deliberately making themselves obnoxious and invading my personal boundaries. I’m not within my rights to physicall harm them or steal their credit cards, but I fail to see why I have any obligation to be ladylike and agreeble toward some jerk who won’t stop staring at (commenting on) my chest.
Banned, eh?
I’ll be a good girl then and be quiet.
Q, I appreciate your comments, and want you to continue to comment — but “panties in a wad” is anti-feminist invective, even when used by a woman to describe a man.
Eh, I was trying to introduce levity. You’re right, I did not exercise very good judgement in choosing that phrase.
“Panties in a wad” doesn’t seem like banning-level offense to me, but you are the man here, Hugo.
When my daughters were teenagers they used that expression quite frequently, as did their friends. I don’t believe I have ever heard it from male lips.
And just a wrod to stay on-topic: The males who indulge in the crude behavior of staring at girls/women, IME, are usually teenagers who are still coming to terms with their sexuality. The vast majority grow out of it, but a few remain stunted in this way throughout their lives. They are rather pathetic individuals, though a few may be dangerous. Those few are the maladapted criminal fringe members of society, and have no role in determining mainstream socially acceptable behavior. Thus, their actions as social pariahs have no bearing on questions of male oppression in society. That attempts are made by feminists to define it so is a strong statement on how desperately they must grasp at any wisp of a straw in order to prove the unprovable. The chimera of the oppressed American/Western female is elusive indeed.
Sorry Hugo, I fell for the heated rhetoric. I’m a sucker in that regard.
C.J., I understand what you’re saying, but as I’ve said before, IMO a comment is acting out while the difference between “looking” and “staring” is so subjective, fluid and ambiguous I believe that even “staring” is on the other side of The Line from acting out. I agree that you have the right to respond to specific acts (e.g., rude/lewd comments) but not looks or “stares.” Sure, people who stare are jerks, but we shouldn’t all go around retaliating against jerks who aren’t acting out.
stanton, I personally have heard men using the “panties in a wad” remark, but like ginmar considered mild stuff in the Grand Scheme of things. And I agree, and have said it before: If “stares” from a miniscule number of men (and lesbians) are the worst that American/Western women have to worry about, then they have a tough row to hoe re. convincing anyone that they are “oppressed,” etc.
I don’t see where any of the women on this thread have tried to make this into an issue of “male oppression,” though jaketk has been quick to point out any time that they’ve tried to say it’s a “woman’s issue” alone.
The point has been made, over and over, that women are frequently told to be aware of the possibility of male agression because they will be blamed if they don’t take action to avoid a dangerous situation (which they are supposed to assume any agressive act could turn into).
Whether it is right for women to be told to be that cautious is another issue. I would say it’s along the same lines of white people being afraid in black neighborhoods – keep in mind it may be mostly in your head and focus very carefully on the signals you are being given before responding. The difference there is that white people are probably more likely to be afraid in a black neighborhood but black people in a white neighborhood probably have more reason to be afraid.
Taking the fear element out, men looking at women or women looking at men shouldn’t assume they have a right to be lustful or rude based on the signals they may or may not be recieving.
Non-verbal communication is always hard to measure. As Uzzah pointed out, “Maybe some people are just assholes that treat women (and others) poorly.” But as Anne and others (on both sides) have pointed out, Hugo’s point wasn’t to set up a blame game. He was trying to encourage people to think about how to act responsibly themselves in this issue.
Vacula said: “Whether it is right for women to be told to be that cautious is another issue. I would say it’s along the same lines of white people being afraid in black neighborhoods – keep in mind it may be mostly in your head and focus very carefully on the signals you are being given before responding. The difference there is that white people are probably more likely to be afraid in a black neighborhood but black people in a white neighborhood probably have more reason to be afraid.”
Come on Vacula, I can’t let that one slide – that’s a pretty strong stereotype you’re painting, and a racist one at that. The only race-related violence I or anyone I know have ever encountered have been black-on-white; in fact, the father of one of my good friends was shot in the head point-blankand murdered on the streets of Manhattan in broad daylight, simply for being a white man. Seems that the initiation for that gang was to kill a white man.
I don’t share your view that black people have more reason to be afraid in white neighborhoods in the U.S. in 2005 than whites in black neighborhoods.
Sorry if the above comment was a little annoyed-sounding. I had a man make a lewd comment on my breasts (and then try to block the sidewalk) as I was walking back to my office from lunch, and some of the exasperation meant for him was directed at commentors here.
And I’m afraid I don’t really tell harassers off as often as I’d like. It’s often not that prudent to escalate conflict with a person who’s bigger and stronger than you, even if there’s nothing intrinsically immoral about it.
Anyway, if a guy’s biggest problem is having a few swear words spat at him by the amply-clad woman he’s been (inexplicably) drooling over, he’s got nothing to complain about.
Vacula, I would like to know what evidence you were using when you say that black men have more to fear in a white area than whites in a black area? I admit that it strikes me as baseless rhetoric that is commonly accepted “wisdom” in the modern “blame the white males” society, but just in case you had some actual hard evidence, I thought that I would ask. Please feel free to prove me wrong, and I will apologize.
“The only race-related violence I or anyone I know have ever encountered have [sic] been black-on-white”
How often have you endured racial profiling? How many people do you know that have suffered degrading experiences (if not violence) due to racial profiling? I didn’t say black were in danger of violent crimes in white areas, though I should have been more specific.
My point was that fear of violence in a black neighborhood displays the same kind of thinking that women are encouraged to have around men that give them “aggressive” signals – both are profiling another group of people. I don’t think it’s right to make assumptions about men or blacks or whites based on the statistical possibility of suffering a violent crime. Street smarts are all about reading signals accurately and not putting yourself in dangerous situations. I’m all in favor of that, but that’s much more contextual than the media-induced paranoia that many people live with.
Ethically, “street smarts” shouldn’t determine the way we judge people in general. It’s easy to buy into the culture of fear that the media promotes, but few of us are in danger of an actual violent crime. Obviously we shouldn’t put ourselves in danger, but neither should we dehumanize other people by living too much in fear.
I don’t see where any of the women on this thread have tried to make this into an issue of “male oppression,” though jaketk has been quick to point out any time that they’ve tried to say it’s a “woman’s issue” alone.
The point has been made, over and over, that women are frequently told to be aware of the possibility of male agression because they will be blamed if they don’t take action to avoid a dangerous situation (which they are supposed to assume any agressive act could turn into).
Perhaps you should re-read this thread then. The thread began as a discussion of male “lust†in staring at women. The appropriate questions were raised, specifically whether the staring was in fact “lustâ€. It appears to be based purely on assumption, though as the thread has progressed, the description has gone from lust to “male gaze†to agression to sexual aggression and finally to consept of staring leading to rape. The point I have made (and I would suggest you re-read my posts) is that women are not the only ones stared at, not are they the only ones who are made uncomfortable by it. So far people have managed to agree that staring is rude and ill-mannered. I would suggest that it is rude and ill-mannered regardless of the gender of the starer.
As for the second point, again, the same thing is true of men. Very few people have sympathy males, even young boys, who are assaulted as a result of an altercation or attack from a person who initially stared at them. It is expected that men avoid dangerous situations on their own, without anyone’s help or aid.
So I stand by my point: this is not a women’s issue. Women are not the only ones stared at, nor are they the only ones attacked or made to feel comfortable.
jaketk, I was just pointing out that you’ve been trying to keep the conversation on target. I agree with you that Hugo’s remarks about personal accountability for looking/staring/leering should apply to anyone of any gender.
That’s why I said “men looking at women or women looking at men shouldn’t assume they have a right to be lustful or rude based on the signals they may or may not be recieving”
Okay Vacula, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. But do you really believe what you said here: “I don’t think it’s right to make assumptions about men or blacks or whites based on the statistical possibility of suffering a violent crime”? I am with you 100% here, as this represents the demonization of an entire group based on the behavior of the extreme criminal fringe. If you were telling the truth here, then you are among the few feminists who eschew the use of rape statistics to “prove” their assumption of male oppression. Many (most?) actually call rape a tool of “socialization” – even educated persons on this very blog. I invite you to call them out on it when they do this.
Or is it really okay in this one case?
I’m not in the habit of calling up the specter of rape in arguments, no, but I think in this thread the person was using it to talk about the fear of rape being used to socialize women, not rape itself.
I can buy the argument there, that fear is a tool of socialization, without taking any stance about the justification of using fear. How about you?
jaketk, I was just pointing out that you’ve been trying to keep the conversation on target. I agree with you that Hugo’s remarks about personal accountability for looking/staring/leering should apply to anyone of any gender
my mistake. i must have read it wrong.
But how is “punch(ing) their ticket” going to show more people how to treat others with respect?
By discouraging bad behavior thru negative reinforcement. :>)
Negative reinforcement doesn’t have lasting results, and more often than not, it has negative results in the long term.
Jaketk, I’m interested in hearing how often you get read as a “ho” for wearing clothes that fail to completely conceal the shape of your body.
Well, I don’t like people looking at my body, so I typically wear long sleeves and pants. But to answer your question, I haven’t been called a “ho†since I was a child.
As several other commentors have pointed out, men are often happy to assume that a woman is a “ho” if, after thorough and careful investigation, they can manage to discern a breast through her shirt.
This is a perfect example of why I am taking issue with this. How do you, or the other women, know for a fact, that all men (you stated men so I am going to assume you are speaking of men in general) assume a woman is a “ho†if they can see her breasts? Is that really what men think, or is that what you assume men are thinking?
Do you deal with unwelcome sexual comments on a regular basis when you ride the bus or walk home from work? If you did, you might get a little tetchy when people stared at you intensely.
Actually, yes I do. From both women and men since I live near the gay area of the city. And yes, I get very touchy when people stare at me because of my past experiences. However, in the vast majority of instances, they do not mean any harm, so I try not to go off. The only thing that will make me react is when people touch me, which tends to happen more with women than men. I truly do not like being touched, but women will typically do that—anything from brushing against me to squeezing a part of my body—without me prompting them as a means of getting my attention. But I have a rather unnerving glare, so they usually get the point.
The males who indulge in the crude behavior of staring at girls/women, IME, are usually teenagers who are still coming to terms with their sexuality. The vast majority grow out of it, but a few remain stunted in this way throughout their lives. They are rather pathetic individuals, though a few may be dangerous. Those few are the maladapted criminal fringe members of society, and have no role in determining mainstream socially acceptable behavior. Thus, their actions as social pariahs have no bearing on questions of male oppression in society. That attempts are made by feminists to define it so is a strong statement on how desperately they must grasp at any wisp of a straw in order to prove the unprovable.
Stanton, I’d buy your point on that – IF it weren’t for the fact that so many got in such an uproar over it being stated that women get uncomfortable being stared at in ways that feel predatory/threatening. FWIW, it’s not only men who’ve made me feel that way. Once upon a time, I worked for a female principal who made me feel that way, as well. She’s not the only lesbian I’ve ever worked for, but she’s the only one who ever made my skin crawl as I walked by.
Vacula: “I’m not in the habit of calling up the specter of rape in arguments, no, but I think in this thread the person was using it to talk about the fear of rape being used to socialize women, not rape itself.”
The actual quote (by Q Grrl): “Rape is unique to women in this country in how often it occurs to women, how it is used to socialized girls, and in the fact that the predominant number of rapists are men who rape women.” She made no reference to fear of rape – just rape. And she refers to the frequency, the predominance of males – statistical stuff, without the stats. So please – feel free to let her know that she’s off base, and to cool it with the confrontive accusational tone and unethical/invalid use of numbers. I will back you up.
And as for fear being a tool of socialization, yes, I can buy that. It is used by parents in training their children (fear of punishment, fear of consequences of dangerous behavior, etc.) and governments (fear of legal penalties for sanctioned behavior), and socially (fear of social ostracism for unacceptable behavior), and other ways as well. Fear of rape is no different than fear of any other violent crime, in the propriety of its use in socializing the behavior of anyone. It is no more a tool to keep women suppressed than fear of assault is a tool to keep men down.
Thanks for bringing the quote back – there are a lot of posts here and I should have looked it up. I guess I was interpreting her statement the way I would have used the argument, since it makes no sense to me on its own otherwise. Happy?
Still, I think she’s trying to argue with jaketk or someone else that women’s fear of aggressive crime is sexualized because of the high rate of rape in violence against women. She may have a point statistically, but I think jaketk is right to say women shouldn’t use those statistics to ignore the fact that men and boys are also sexually harrassed. Statistics should never be used to downplay or ignore abuse against any group. Happy again?
Of course, in addition, people from one group shouldn’t get upset when people from another group are discussing how a particular shared problem affects their specific group.
stanton: [Rape] is no more a tool to keep women suppressed than fear of assault is a tool to keep men down.
I disagree: women are held responsible for their role in sexual assaults far more than men are held responsible when they are assaulted. That’s why people (of both genders) responded at length to Uzzah’s arguments about women’s culpability in their clothing choices. This is a very complicated issue, but the idea that women should be held responsible for their choices and other people’s reactions is an unjust burden on women in my view, something that may unreasonably suppress their freedom to make independent choices.
Which is exactly why Hugo started posting on the need for men to take responsibility for their own actions whether or not they think women are trying to “provoke” or “attract” them when they put on clothes.
Vacula said: “How often have you endured racial profiling?”
Every time I apply for a job that states “(so and so) is an equal employment/affirmative action employer.” (noting the mutually-exclusive irony of the phrase “equal opportunity/affirmative action”)
Continuing:“How many people do you know that have suffered degrading experiences (if not violence) due to racial profiling?” Every single white male friend of mine who has applied for jobs that advertise they are “equal employment/affirmative action employers.”
The problem is that the institutional racial and ethnic discrimination against non-Hispanic, non-Jewish white males is so deeply ingrained in our society that most people who aren’t non-Hispanic, non-Jewish white and male don’t even notice it. But that doesn’t make the societally-endorsed institutional racism and sexism any less real or problematic.
Vacula also stated: “women are held responsible for their role in sexual assaults far more than men are held responsible when they are assaulted. “
Nonsense. In modern Western societies for all practical purposes it’s unheard of for a woman to be held repsonsible their role in sexual assaults; rape shield laws and the like have seen to it that only men are put under the microscope and in the spotlight for all to see.
Vacula >> This is a very complicated issue, but the idea that women should be held responsible for their choices and other people’s reactions is an unjust burden on women in my view, something that may unreasonably suppress their freedom to make independent choices.
It would be a great world for women everywhere that you want to live in. Good luck..
“Anyway, if a guy’s biggest problem is having a few swear words spat at him by the amply-clad woman he’s been (inexplicably) drooling over, he’s got nothing to complain about.”
Precisely.
Interesting that Mr Bad (and others)interpret the annoyance with rude and socially innappropriate behavior demonstrated by so many women here as “crippling fear”. Personally, I grew up in the Third World, surrounded by soldiers with rifles – no ammount of staring is going to make me freeze in fear, unless the starer is also pointing an AK47 at me. It is however going to piss me off, and make me think that the person staring is a moron who lacks basic social skills and any respect for other people’s feelings.
As stated above by Anna, the basic rules of the playground apply here. Don’t steal other people’s toys, don’t push, and don’t stare (regardless of what your reason for wanting to stare is). This is such basic stuff it boggles the mind that some people are so determined to argue about it.
Or, to put it another way, there’s no constitutionally protected right to act like an asshole.
Vacula: How often have you endured racial profiling?
Mr. Bad: Every time I apply for a job that states “(so and so) is an equal employment/affirmative action employer.
That, sir, is avoiding the question. You were talking about interracial crime – I was talking about the percieved danger of being in a neighborhood that is predominated by people of another race. Racial profiling is generally understood as a phrase that describes law enforcement officials making assumptions about the possible guilt of a person based on their race.
Some people use statistics to argue for the viability of this technique. I was pointing out that some feminists and many other people concerned for the safety of women also use statistics to justify assuming men pose a possible threat. None of this has nothing to do with affirmative action.
*anything – none of this has anything to do with affirmative action
Q: “Girls, on the other hand, are socialized to accept boys’ aggression [neatly summed in the trite phrase: boys will be boys]. Grown men have a sense of social freedom in staring at women. After all, they learned as boys that most girls will not return the aggression.”
I see the exact opposite as true. I see men admonished and told that they should act like gentlemen, and women applauded for taking that “social freedom” of ogling (and maybe doing some unwelcomed touching of) men. Again, that woman who tried to grope me said, “I”M allowed!” as if to say, “You’re not allowed to do this to me, but I’m allowed to do this to you.”
For the record, I don’t believe in the “boys will be boys” defense, either. Everybody’s supposed to behave.
bg
erin c.: “That’s awful, bmmg39 — in no way should you have had to put up with that. And you make a good general point about unwanted sexual attention; it’s not just about the physical threat — you obviously weren’t worried about psychogranny wrestling you to the ground — it’s about embarrassment, having your space invaded, etc.”
Yes, Erin, and, indeed, I wasn’t really worried about being wrestled to the ground, even though I’m a fairly small person. The point is that if she kept trying to make a move, and I pushed her hand away, a lot of people would be admonishing ME, not her, for “hitting” her (even if I were merely blocking her with my hand). The smaller person has a strength disadvantage but that can be trumped by society’s permission to do something, and society’s disallowance of the bigger person’s right to say “no.”
“This is one of the ways gender stereotypes can damage men as well — some women assume that sort of thing is okay, or only a minor indiscretion, because a ‘real man’ is always ready and willing. Yuck.”
My point, exactly. Thank you.
bg
Jaketk, I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions about you personally, and yes, sexual harassment does sometimes affect men, and it’s equally wrong when it affects men. That said, I don’t think you can really get to the root of sexual harassment without talking about gender, because sexual harassment does not affect women and men equally (as groups — I am not saying that every woman is harassed more than every man). It would be like talking about the prison system without talking about race (when black and hispanic men are incarcerated at much greater rates than white men for nonviolent, drug-related crimes). So yes, I want to extend sympathy for male victims of sexual violence and sexual harassment. But I don’t want to shut down discussion of gender as a contributing factor in sexual harassment.
As several other commentors have pointed out, men are often happy to assume that a woman is a “ho” if, after thorough and careful investigation, they can manage to discern a breast through her shirt.
This is a perfect example of why I am taking issue with this. How do you, or the other women, know for a fact, that all men (you stated men so I am going to assume you are speaking of men in general) assume a woman is a “ho†if they can see her breasts? Is that really what men think, or is that what you assume men are thinking?
First of all, I do not think that all men have sexist attitudes; I think that men often do (i.e., one often finds men who do). Second, I can’t read anybody’s mind, but I have some good evidence indirect evidence that many men (and possibly many women as well) view women largely or primarily as sexual objects for men’s use. Nor do I have any reason to think that I can exempt myself from being seen as a sexual object for men’s use, simply by wearing a baggy shirt and not behaving in a sexual way.
As a bit of evidence I notice several commentors on Hugo’s blog and elsewhere asserting that women (always? usually?) dress for the purpose of sexually enticing men. I find that many newspaper articles, when they discuss a powerful women, will make some sort comment on her attractivness. I notice that one commentor on Hugo’s blog tried to convince me that rape was not really assault (unless it was the rape of a straight man), since it was merely stealing a commodity that women and gay men often sell.
There are also sexist nutters like Mike Adams and Leon Kass to contend with. While I realize those guys are on the lunatic fringe, I find it interesting that no one on the lunatic fringe suggests that (straight) men who have sex are whores. (Some of them suggest that men behave immorally when they have premarital or extramarital respect, but I don’t really see a anyone suggesting that promiscuous straight men are dirty and unworthy of respect. Feel free to find me some nutters who take this view.)
And if I’m exempt from all this when I wear a baggy shirt, then why do people still harass me?
Hugo, thanks for this post. I’ll never forget walking in a parade as one of a troop of twirlers when I was 14 only to have the old guys stare, make ugly comments and try to touch me as the group moved down the street. And this was in the 70s, in a fundamentalist religious area.
I’ve seen that staring look many times since then. It’s the type of stare where the man is too intense, never looks away, doesn’t smile (but might lick his lips). It’s like a sick attempt at ownership. It’s profoundly disturbing and frightening. The ones that smile are a little less threatening (depending on the type of smile) but it’s still aggressive if he doesn’t look away.
Do any of you guys arguing that you have the right to stare, do you REALLY think that’s OK? And if you think that’s OK, then how about the following, which aren’t even considered aggressive?
Staring at a cancer patient who’d had half his/her face removed?
Staring at a bald child who’d been undergoing chemo?
Staring at a burn victim?
Staring at a person with cerebral palsy who uses a head stick to type on a keyboard?
Staring at the nose of someone who has a huge booger protruding from it?
Most people would make a huge attempt not to stare at these folks, even though they’re curious (or whatever), BECAUSE IT’S BAD MANNERS AND IT’S NOT OK. How, then, is it good manners to stare at some woman or girl who doesn’t know or care that you exist?
Jodie, most people DO “make a huge attempt not to stare at these folks, even though they’re curious (or whatever)”. Those who bahave as you describes are rude, boorish, pathetic, jerks. I don’t believe anyone disagrees with this. As for having a RIGHT to behave this way, well we really cannot legislate manners, so I suppose a person has the “right” to place his/her gaze wherever s/he chooses, in public. That’s not to say that it’s okay. We just cannot arrest a person for being a jerk. You wouldn’t wish to live in that world.
I didn’t say they should be arrested — I said it was bad manners. Just as it’s bad manners to stare at a good looking person.
“As another pointed out (in this thread or the other related one earlier this week), girls and women are (or at least should be) fully aware that when they dress provocatively (e.g., with langerie, undergarments, lace, skin, etc., exposed) this will turn men on.”
Out of all the points raised in this decidedly long comment thread, I take issue the most (by a wide margin, too) with the idea that women should build their wardrobes around other people’s opinions. Dressing for other people’s reactions (or lack thereof) means that women react full-time so men can avoid momentary distractions, and what does that say about the worth of women’s convenience as compared to men’s?
As a general rule, other people’s opinions/reactions/nonreactions have no bearing whatsoever on what I choose to wear. I dress to please myself, to be happy with how I look and feel, and occasionally the weather gets to put its two cents’ worth in. I don’t care in the slightest if someone stares at me–what they see is light reflected off me, and once that light enters their eyes, the image it carries with it belongs to them, and their interpretation of it is their business. I don’t dress to attract attention and I don’t dress to avoid attention–I dress to feel beautiful, confident, powerful, and, yes, sexy, but in a self-affirming, worthy-of-only-the-best, I-deserve-to-feel-like-this way, not a come-fuck-me way that’s designed to be recieved by anyone and everyone who I walk by; the message I send is for me. It’s like lighting a candle so that I have light, not so that I’m visible in the darkness to everyone else.
Couple things to point out—1) There’s a difference between lust and appreciation of beauty; one can certainly have a nonsexual, aesthetic appreciation for another person even if you also find them attractive sexually. 2) Much of people’s “lustful” reactions are not even remotely complimentary by any stretch of the imagination, although some of it regularly succeeds at being complimentary, and I wonder how they managed to get put in the same category—oh, wait. Patriarchy, of course. Men’s reactions get sorted from their perspective when their effects on women are completely irrelevent. 3) In my opinion, society takes much of the blame here. It is highly irritating that attraction is defined so exclusively by visual stimuli, by *bodies* instead of people—hence, much of the success of purely visual porn. Then there’s sort of the reverse of that—that bare skin and tight clothing are read to scream “sex” in such a way that overpowers everything else about the woman in question. What I think would be nice is if our society made it possible for a beautiful woman to walk around topless (like men do), and not be stared at, catcalled, or dismissed as a person, or otherwise reduced to her appearance, because sex appeal did not center so totally on a pair of nice tits, and anyway, it’s not like it’s something unusual–every woman’s got ‘em. (Back in the Victorian era, an exposed ankle could inspire lust—now they’re sort of ignored—nothing new, nothing special; people are used to them.)
Jodie–just wondering about your analysis of the difference between a disgusted/horrified/morbidly-curious stare and an admiring one. Are they, to you, not significantly different?
Obviously the more lecherous types fall into the former category, as that is not an emotion that one generally cares to inspire in people. But people tend to prefer admiration to disgust, and sometimes they prefer admiration to being ignored. Wondering where you draw the line between good and bad, and why you draw it there. Do your beliefs regarding lust have something to do with it? Do other people’s? Which side of the line is admiration on, and how do you distinguish admiration from lust? Anyone else want to answer (politely), have at it.
I see the exact opposite as true
It is true that men are taught that women can’t possibly be a serious threat, and therefore aren’t allowed to take aggression from women seriously. But it’s also the case that women are not supposed get angry at men who are sexually aggressive–boys will be boys, what did you expect the way you were dressed, you could have told him to leave you alone nicely instead of being a bitch. (And I promise you, a woman who assertively refuses unwanted advances is going to be called a bitch.)
As for ‘applauding’, do remember that there is a best-selling nonfiction book called the Girl-Watcher’s Club, and we have plenty of shrieking about how women like to be appreciated and shouldn’t do all that PC whining about a mere appreciative glance.