It’s election day in California, my endorsements here.
I had a visit last week from a fella who was in my women’s studies class a couple of semesters ago, and is now a student in another one of my courses. I’ll call him "Pete"; he’s a regular reader of this blog and gave me permission to blog about our conversation.
Pete came to my office to ask me about pro-feminism. He’s 20, bright, articulate, handsome, a native of Pasadena of Greek descent. I’ll try and paraphrase what he said and asked:
I’m really struggling with whether or not I want to be a feminist man. I get that injustice and inequality exist, but at the same time, I don’t know why I have to get involved in this now, when I’m so young. Didn’t you, Hugo, take a long time to match your language and your life?
Darn it all, Pete reads this blog. And he’s right — when I was 20, I claimed to be a male feminist, but my feminism was shallow to the core. It’s tough to challenge young men to be at their age what I most certainly wasn’t until much, much later!
The thing is,Pete continued, I don’t think girls want feminist guys! You know that whole thing where girls aren’t into nice guys but would rather have bad boys? It’s like they say they want one thing, but in reality they want another. If I want to meet girls and have fun, I have a lot more success when I don’t try and be pro-feminist. I mean, why should I be more feminist than the women around me?
I hear this from guys like Pete a great deal. I had a female friend in college who was an ardent feminist, yet admitted that she wasn’t sexually drawn to most pro-feminist men. "Jackie" acknowledged an inconsistency that I’ve come to see in a number of other younger feminist women — an intellectual desire to be in an egalitarian relationship, but a strong physical and emotional attraction to men who were more dominant and, to put it mildly, much less feminist. Jackie always said she wanted to marry a pro-feminist man someday, but until then, she was going to have her fun with men she referred to as "dangerous assholes who turn me on."
When I was in college, I knew a lot of women like Jackie. They haven’t disappeared from the ranks of the younger generation, either. This is what Pete was complaining about — among his peers, he found relatively few women who seemed to want feminist men, and more who seemed drawn to the alpha male "bad boy." Pete told me that he had the capacity to be either at any time, but it seemed pointless to work on being a feminist when living up to pro-feminist principles didn’t seem to him to be an effective strategy for connecting with women. Pete asked:
Why shouldn’t I wait to be a pro-feminist man until I’m older, when women will appreciate it? Why shouldn’t I be a player now, and have my fun?
I laughed gently, and reminded Pete of Augustine’s famous plea: "Give me continence, Lord, but not yet!" Pete got it, and chuckled too.
Of course, I did tell Pete that the purpose of becoming a pro-feminist man is not to please women or to "get" women into bed. Indeed, doing so only reinforces the worst stereotypes about male feminists! I know countless folks who suspect that pro-feminist men are simply "wolves in sheep’s clothing", looking for a new and effective strategy for seducing women. Indeed, when pro-feminist men aren’t being told that we’re gay, or filled with self-hatred, we’re frequently accused of being predatory frauds. I reminded Pete that I hadn’t tried to sell pro-feminism as a "tool" for using and exploiting women.
What I did suggest to Pete was that he consider the possibility that what was really attractive to women wasn’t necessarily the "bad boy", but the confident man. One of the worst stereotypes of pro-feminist men — one that may have a small grain of truth — is that many pro-feminist guys are timid. My cousin Dinah put it beautifully years ago: "I really hate it when nice guys are always trying to take my emotional temperature! It’s like, stop asking me what I want all the time and be an equal partner in decision making!"
In the early stages of embracing pro-feminism, too many young men (including my younger self) tend to walk on eggshells around women. These young men are idealistic, and intensely eager to reject traditional male privilege and modes of behavior. But the end result, all too often, is a most unattractive kind of indecisiveness! I went through a period in my own life where I figured my job as a pro-feminist was to always, always, always, ask a woman what she wanted. "Where do you want to go to dinner?" "Are you feeling okay?" "Is there anything I can do for you?" "Would you like to talk about it?" While showing concern for another person’s feelings is appropriate, it’s all too easy for insecure "newbie" pro-feminist men to drive women stark raving bonkers by, as cousin Dinah said, constantly trying to take a woman’s emotional temperature. Constant, anxious solicitousness is not, um, sexy.
The most difficult thing about being a young pro-feminist man isn’t just practicing one’s feminist principles in all aspects of one’s life, though that sure as heck is difficult enough. I told Pete last week that I’d found that the most difficult thing to do was to become clear on the difference between an attractive and compelling confidence and a privileged arrogance. Pro-feminism is not about turning men into eager and attentive servants or rescuing knights in shining armor. It’s possible to learn to renounce male privilege while retaining a strong, bold, sense of oneself. Sometimes, in other words, a pro-feminist man can make decisions. As Jackie put it, "I don’t want a man to always ask me where I want to go to dinner — sometimes I want a man confident enough to pick the damn restaurant on his own."
In the end, I told Pete, there’s more to life as a man than choosing between being a wimp or a jerk! Pro-feminism, at its best, is not "wimpy." Indeed, it’s intensely courageous, as it involves the conscious and public refusal to live up to what our culture traditionally demands of men. It also demands that men stand up to other men, challenging their sexism even when no women are around. As most young guys will tell you, there aren’t many things that are scarier than speaking up against misogyny when in an all-male group. Any young man who can do that is doing something exceptionally brave and impressive.
Pro-feminism asks men to ask hard questions of themselves and the culture. It asks young men to hold themselves accountable; it asks young men to see women as human beings. But it doesn’t ask young men to be anxious people-pleasers. People-pleasing, after all, is cowardly and manipulative. An aspiring pro-feminist man still gets to express his desires and his wants; he doesn’t get to keep a sense of entitlement that tells him that women exist only to meet those desires and wants.
I don’t know how much Pete got out of our conversation, but when he left, he said "Hugo, thanks. I know I’m going to be a pro-feminist — soon. But not just yet." I laughed and told him "One day at a time, buddy, one day at a time."
Ahhh. So when he’s ready to determine that women are no longer less than human, or merely second class citizens, *then* he’ll support us.
You know, when women approach an all male group and challenge them on their misogyny, we’re called man-haters, ball busters, dykes, and harpies. Don’t kid yourself that a man challenging other men is brave or exceptionally impressive. It’s not even virtuous. More precisely, it’s a base-level human reaction to injustice — and no man should be given kudos for simply rising to the least common denominator.
This guys whining about lack or sex or lack of female companionship — but he’s willing to put up with misogyny if it means his needs are getting met. Why would you find that even remotely acceptable?
Further, just because a man feels he cannot compete with other men vis-a-vis dominance, it doesn’t make him a feminist. Or pro-woman. It just means he’s fully bought the idea of masculinity equaling dominance. He’s just as bad as the bully who calls another man a “pussy” — only he’s assuming he *is* a “pussy” and therefore has some sort of “in” with women. Then he gets upset when he realizes he never bothered to ask women what they want or need — and blames it on women for sending mixed messages.
Sometimes, in other words, a pro-feminist man can make decisions. As Jackie put it, “I don’t want a man to always ask me where I want to go to dinner — sometimes I want a man confident enough to pick the damn restaurant on his own.”
YES. I went on a couple of dates with a guy like this last Fall. For the first date, he waffled for so long about what to do/where to go, that I finally just said, “This restaurant. This time. See you then!” For the second date, I didn’t bother waiting for him to have an opinion, and made a suggestion from the start. Nice, nice man…but very bland.
Q Grrl, cut Pete a little slack — he clearly had a skewed idea of what it might mean to be pro-feminist, but at least he’s looking. That’s more than can be said for many college-aged men — and women for that matter.
Q Grrl, you’re confusing the right thing to do with the easy thing to do. Male privilege is not infinite, renouncing it is tricky, and entails a lot of unknown risk as well as known risk. You’re losing out on a lot of things that most people will tell you are your birthright, and no matter how wrong they are, the patriarchy sure is persistent. Add in the hypocrisy of feminists rejecting feminist men due to their own swallowing of patriarchal mythology, and things are challenging for a male feminist. I should say that we don’t really need to compare the challenges of being a male and female feminist – it might be harder for women in a million different ways but that doesn’t mean it’s a walk in the park for a dude. And, as for your first sentence, I think that sounds like the right arc for moving from a life wrapped in patriarchal norms into one that follows and understands feminist principles. Unless you’re willing to wait for non- and anti-feminists to up and die one day, that’s what you’re going to have to settle for.
WOMEN ARE NOT ATTRACTED BY BAD BOYS! Actually, I trully believe the opposite is more the norm, although there appears to be a persistent stereotype regarding women as pro “jerks.” Why don’t you take a survey in your classes? I bet you will discover that women are not a stupid as they are made out to be. __Okay, I finished the article,I certainly agree with your conclusion. I believe that taking a stand and being aggressive about what you feel strongly about has nothing to do with being a pro-feminist, it has to do with having the confidence to just be yourself!
I have very little sympathy for people who conceal and repress any aspect of themselves that’s remotely non-mainstream in order to maximize the chances that any random woman (or man) they approach will be willing to sleep with them. Those of us whose appearance, personality and interests fall well outside the mainstream generally don’t have the privilege of being able to conveniently put away all the less traditionally attractive aspects of ourselves when we want to get laid, and yet somehow we manage to get along just fine– why should I feel sorry for “Pete” when he laments how hard it is to actually have a personality that isn’t centered around some stereotypical generalization about “What Women Want”?
Also, shockingly enough, there are some things in the world that are a little bit more important than having as much sex with as many women as possible. Even if the hypothesis that pro-feminist men get less sex is true, Pete’s refusal to do anything about the “injustice and inequality” he sees around him because doing so might threaten his social life is deeply selfish (and, again, privileged). If Pete honestly believes in feminist ideals, but refuses to live by them– not because he fears violence or any real, significant threat to his way of life, simply because he thinks he might have to work a little bit harder to find a woman who’ll go to bed with him on any given night– then I don’t see how he’s anything other than a hypocrite.
Of course, I am feeling rather cynical today, so maybe it’s just that. I know I’m not always completely open about my feminism when I’m around friends who I know don’t get it, but that seems a little different– one, I am willing to identify as a feminist in other areas of my life, and two, I’m not rejecting feminism because it doesn’t fit into some prepackaged idea of “how to be as attractive as possible to the opposite sex.” I think that’s the part that bothers me most, honestly– I hate it when people sacrifice the things that make them unique and interesting because they think those things will make them less attractive to “average” people and they don’t want their dating pool limited in any way. Quality over quantity, anyone?
I have always liked strong, confident men but that doesn’t mean that I want to be dominated. Too often the cultural attitude seems to be that a woman can either have a man who dominates her or a man who is willing to be dominated. Both strike me as equally unattractive.
It is amazing how people have a tough time grasping the notion of an egalitarian relationship. It is almost as though people assume that someone has to be “in charge” — so if the man isn’t “in charge,” that means the woman must be “in charge.” Not so!
While I’m not delighted by this young man’s decision to be pro-feminist ‘later’, presumably after he’s been the requisite ‘dangerous asshole’ and gotten some play, I do think this indicates that feminist women have some work to do.
Others have said it better- young (and maybe not so young) women still carry enough internalized misogyny to buy into patriarchy’s ideal of manhood. That’s on us, then, to bring our desires in line with our ideals. I suppose my main comment is that oppression is a bitch and it’s a hellacious pain in the butt to disentangle it from both society and yourself.
I know that *I* don’t want a domineering guy. I like to be in charge. But more attractive yet is the prospect of joint leadership, a true egalitarian relationship. I’d agree completely with Happy that society can’t seem to even imagine that. We are really addicted to top-down hiearchies of dominance as a society, to our utter detriment.
We can’t call out that young man without getting our own house in order about this. We need to reject this crap first, and be consistent in our desires.
The comments here are illustrative — so many feminists in their post-college years do discover the “joint headship” model (to use Christian language). But when we’re talking about a 20 year-old guy dating women his own age, it’s tough — as Random makes clear, so few young women have really extricated themselves from the culture at that age!
the most difficult thing to do was to become clear on the difference between an attractive and compelling confidence and a privileged arrogance
So how is this to be executed exactly?
Be that as it may Hugo, your advice was to pat him on his back and tell him it’s okay! You’re neihter young nor female — he came to you for advice and you seem to have forgotten that the premise of feminism is politics, not sexual liscence.
No, I did not tell him it’s okay to mistreat women; I told him it was okay (in a therapeutic sense) for him to be where he was. I acknowledged the legitimacy of his feelings. I also encouraged him to think differently, be braver, and push himself forward “one day at a time.” To borrow a phrase from AA, a journey towards feminism is “progress not perfection.”
Dude, confidence comes from knowing what it is that one really wants; arrogance is feeling entitled to be given it. We learn to live into it by trial and error with the help of good friends — alas, there is no magic formula!
You condoned his willingness to continue to view women as less than fully human in lieu of his desire to be intimate with women. You would have been much braver encouraging him to be celibate until such time that he can see no difference between his humanity and the humanity of women. Feminism is not a self-help group; it is not a program to cure the ills of an ego run wild. One day at a time might work for *his* ego needs, but then that’s why we have feminism in the first place: men’s ego needs have superceded women’s needs for social change for millenia now.
You are placing his ego needs before the needs of teenage moms, raped women, battered women, underpaid women, trafficked women, depoliticized women, etc. If he cannot face the reality of being a woman in this world, he has no right to say women send conflicting messages and “feminism is hard.”
He needs to grow up. Treating feminism as if it were a logical 12 step program of personal retribution and ego humiliation forgoes the vast histories of human society. This is not a crusade; not a 4th step; this is *my* life, the lives of all women, placed on the dusty shelves of time until this young man can figure himself out.
Thanks.
Q Grrl, ultimately, I go with what works. I’m an incrementalist when it comes to transformation, and I know damn well that fire and brimstone lectures (which I could easily have given) would send most young men running towards the door. Do I want Pete to be a more effective advocate for justice? Damn right. But I’m going to rely on years and years of experience with young people to inform me that a gentle, incremental approach to personal transformation and social justice works best with folks who are suspicious of the feminist project to begin with.
And your approach to Christianity? You would encourage the sinner to continue sinning because that is more comfortable than fully accepting Christ? Because that’s what you *are* doing. You are supporting the ongoing trespasses against women. I mean, you don’t *have* to be a feminist, all you have to be is a Christian, to see the humanity and worth of women.
I don’t want Pete to be a “more effective advocate” for justice. I want him to be just. He, however, just wants to sow wild oats. Then, and only then, will he find it in his conscience to view women as equal.
Q Grrl,
I’m going to jump in and defend Hugo.
If the real, actual people that I meet say, “I dislike it when you do/say X,” I think that is something I need to pay attention to. I do not see the sense in saying, “Well, my theory is that treating you well requires doing/saying X–if you don’t like it, too bad.” That seems like the classic justification for both slavery and treating women as legally less than men–it’s better for them, whether they like it or not.
Isn’t that the basic problem Pete has? There’s this theory (feminism, in some one of its versions–I don’t have any info on which) that says, treating women well means doing Y and not Z–but all the actual women he meets are saying (by their actions, at least), I do not like it when you do Y–I’d much prefer for you to do Z. Wouldn’t any coherent system of ethics that values women as individuals pay attention to what said women actually want?
I find Q Grrl’s lack of compassion toward Pete very disturbing. As Pete understands the world, he has a choice between satisfying a basic human need for romantic and sexual relations (one that both women and men share), or sacrificing that need in the interests of other people who are the victims of injustice. (Whether or not this is a correct perception is irrelevant unless Pete can be convinced it’s incorrect — something that’s not in Pete’s control.)
You may think that this choice is a no-brainer, but it’s less clear to me, and, I’d suggest, to reasonable, compassionate people. Is it morally compulsory to make personal sacrifices to aid others who are suffering injustice for which one is not personally culpable? I don’t know. There’s centuries worth of philosophical and religious argument on either side. We admire those who make personal sacrifices to avoid injustice. The Germans who hid Jews are recognized rightly as heros. But do we condem as villans those who merely tried to live their lives without being actively culpable in the evil?
From Pete’s perspective, isn’t it easy to see how he might have trouble giving up what is, I hasten to point out again, a basic human need?
Dude: he wants to fuck women he doesn’t see as being his equal. He admits, when they’re older and much less fuckable, they’ll value his feminist contributions more. Pete doesn’t even stop to consider all the women who are never going to fuck him who might just, maybe a little, support his feminist politics. All he’s worried about is his need to screw women. Really. He spells it out very, very clearly.
Why should I ever be compassionate to some guy’s desire to screw hawt, willing chicks? Pete’s whole outlook on feminism is what he will gain from it, and if it isn’t hawt, willing pussy, well… fuck, it ain’t worth it. So says Pete:
“I mean, why should I be more feminist than the women around me?”
Poor guy.
Nah, I save my compassion for folks whose morality resides outside their scrotal sacks. Nice reversal there, though, Dude.
It is amazing how people have a tough time grasping the notion of an egalitarian relationship. It is almost as though people assume that someone has to be “in charge” — so if the man isn’t “in charge,” that means the woman must be “in charge.” Not so!
Nicely said, Happy. An ex of mine seemed convinced that control in a relationship was a zero-sum game. He couldn’t seem to get the idea that I had *no* desire to tell him what to do — I just didn’t want him trying to control me.
QGrrl, I don’t see in this post Pete’s desire to “screw hawt, willing chicks.” I see a guy who’s afraid that *all* women will reject him if he becomes a pansy-assed pro-fem pussy. Hugo worked with him to understand that pro-feminist does NOT equate to pansy-assed pussy, and the guy left the conversation understanding a little bit more about how he might (whether now or later) work toward fixing society’s wrongs. Is that so bad?
From Pete’s perspective, isn’t it easy to see how he might have trouble giving up what is, I hasten to point out again, a basic human need?
Companionship may be a basic human need, but is companionship gained through retooling one’s values and personality toward the lowest common denominator really worth having? If Pete honestly believes in the basic premises of feminism, I don’t see why he would even want relationships with women who don’t see themselves as or wish to be treated as equals. Again, I have very little sympathy for people who are so terrified of the idea that (gasp!) they might not be desirable to every woman/man in the world if they show any hint of individualism, and (shock!) they might even have to spend some time single before they find a compatible partner, that they sacrifice values and beliefs that ought to be important to them. Pursuing the natural human need for companionship is one thing; putting such a high priority on obtaining companionship from anyone at any cost that one abandons the right thing to do in favor of the attractive/popular thing to do is something else entirely, and IMO it smacks of highly unattractive desperation.
Hugo, I just had an interesting thought: if you validate young men in their desire to behave in ways that are incompatible with pro-feminism, you must accept the fact that they will be less desirable partners for young feminist women. Presumably, then, you’re now okay with those young women choosing to date older men (who have “had their fun” and “settled down” into more feminist-friendly attitudes)? Or are they supposed to suffer through relationships with guys who don’t really respect them until those guys get around to growing up?
Keri, as you saw in my progression of posts on older men/younger women, I softened my position considerably on just that subject — your criticisms at the time played a happy role in that!
This is not that tricky. Don’t rape women or beat them up, respect the women you date as human beings, and don’t use your own feminist sympathies to patronizingly “empower” them.
As Hugo has written, the primary useful work that pro-feminist men do is in their relationships with other men; as long as you aren’t boring women with war stories of all the rape jokes you’ve objected to in the locker room, I don’t think they’ll be bothered by your feminism one way or the other. Don’t be jackass in your personal interactions with women (this even applies to women you aren’t dating!) and you’ll be fine.
I feel slightly uncomfortable with Q Grrl’s insensitive comments about Pete’s developing feelings toward feminism. Although I am a woman, I can really relate to what he’s going through. I only recently embraced feminism (in fact, I wouldn’t have called myself a feminist five months ago!). One of the reasons I didn’t consider myself a feminist was because I held so many stereotypes about feminism – that it was a harsh, angry agenda that came with an “us and them” mentality. That’s how I feel that some may classify Pete – either he is a feminist man, or he isn’t. Feminism is not a black and white worldview.
Few people respond well when classified in the “them” category. I agree with Allison’s thinking – no, Pete is not where many feminists would like him to be. But hey, he’s thinking about feminism and is obviously interested in it.
I can draw a parallel to this situation using an experience I had going to confession at the age of 13. Many years ago, I sat in front of the priest and began to cry as I told the him all of my sins, namely the “fooling around” I had done with a few guys that past year. Instead of being glad that I had honestly told him about my struggles of blending Catholicism with my raging middle school hormones, he gave me a stern look and wasn’t very sympathetic at all. He even asked me to describe in detail what I had done with the guys, which I wouldn’t. I left confession crying, angry at the priest and more closed to Catholicism than ever before. (I have long since embraced and renewed my commitment to Catholicism).
What had the priest done to help me out with my situation? Here he was, a priest, who had no comprehension of what it was like to be a 13-year-old girl. And yet, he had the nerve to act like he knew what it was like being a Catholic middle schooler. “Just say no” and I would be fine, was his basic advice. Just be good, just do what it is right, supress your thoughts, only this faith is right. WIth that, I thought, “If that’s what Catholicism is about, then I don’t want to be a Catholic.”
Q Grrl, the same applies for your critique of Pete and his struggles to embrace feminism. It does no good to judge him for being slightly confused and reluctant about certain aspects of feminism – and whether or not his reasons for his thoughts are valid. I am confident that you don’t know what it’s like to be a 20-year-old guy. Similarly, while I wasn’t right in fooling around a lot in middle school (I agree with the priest that it wasn’t in accordance with Catholic teaching), his harsh attitude towards my feelings only backfired on his agenda.
If feminism is to reach men, and if Christianity is to reach non-believers, it is important to LOVE LOVE LOVE all people, no matter where they are in their journey toward a particular belief system. He may not be where we, as feminists, want him to be. But hey, he’s on his way. And that in itself is extremely admirable. You go, Pete!
Mermade, I think we’re on a similar path. I’m 34, but can only really say I’d self-identify as “feminist” recently — for the same reasons. My family is staunchly conservative, and largely because of that, the only real notion I had of feminism was of something angry and irrational. Now that I have a daughter (and I’m looking out for her future), everything has changed.
Thanks for sharing the story of your experience with the priest — your story was powerful, having come from personal experience.
Mermade, thank you as always for your thoughtful responses. Allison, I’m grateful for your thoughts as well. (Heck, I’m stimulated and challenged by Q Grrl — she’s making a case that I need to always consider.)
And Keri, here’s the post on older men and younger women that isn’t listed on my sidebar: A note to Scarlett about older men, younger women (again). It is relevant here, as are the two earlier posts on the subject:
Older Men, Younger Women, Integrity
More on Older Men, Younger Women: A Response to Kate
Thank you, Allison!
Your support made my day!
I think it’s Hugo’s laughing at the end that bugs me. If he had said very seriously “one day at a time,” it wouldn’t have been an implied endorsement.
From Pete’s perspective, isn’t it easy to see how he might have trouble giving up what is, I hasten to point out again, a basic human need?
Most people have a basic human need for ethical behavior.
Of course, in the real world, you can behave ethically and have sex. Most people do. But if you believe you have to choose, which one you choose sure says a lot about you.
You know, I seem to remember plenty of feminist women on college campuses. This isn’t about Pete’s peers being unable to catch up with his enlightenment, Pete’s hanging with the wrong crowd.
The thing is, I don’t know what exactly Pete is doing in his interactions with young women that he thinks is so non-feminist. I have a feeling that Hugo did not in his heart think it was necessarily so bad — and that a few of the feminists who are posting might not, either. I kind of trust Hugo’s instincts on this, although if someone caught something I missed it would be useful to be reminded of it. Otherwise it is difficult to know without the specifics. Certainly whatever he is doing seems to be consensual with the young women in question. I wonder if there is really enough information for any of us to make a judgement one way or the other. And this is from someone who can’t help being the “sensitive New Age guy” stereotype whatever I do, and whether I am being feminist or not. (And certainly being dependent or needy to a woman, as I know I could be in the past, is not always a “feminist” thing to be.)
I think the point about not taking the woman’s emotional temperature all the time is very salient. I also think that “hellfire and brimstone preaching” to young men about their sexuality can be counterproductive, not so much to the bad boys as precisely to the “nice guys/ possible wimps.” We very much need a positive sense of what being a confident feminist/pro-feminist/ally man, who acknowledges his needs and desires and reaches for them in a respectful yet non-needy way, can be — of how such a person can behave, for example in flirting and courtship. And yes, being effective is critical here; very few men will persist in “moral” behavior that is counterproductive at this emotionally charged stage in their lives. (I don’t think being “really” feminist is counterproductive, btw, but I think that some young men could internalize messages they think are feminist and thereby reinforce existing counterproductive patterns of behavior that ultimately will not do either themselves or women any good.) It may not be women, in the final analysis, who “tell us the answer” to this conundrum, at least theoretically — in fact, I think theory is very likely to be easy yet wrong — but praxis, praxis, praxis.
I also think there are some real psychological issues about how one integrates radical knowledge that questions one’s privilege or habits. People who are strong in themselves in the first place do better, and last longer as radicals, and are more effective, than people who take this sort of thing like a medicine ball to the solar plexus and find themselves weak and sometimes in need of constant reassurance. Yet it isn’t actually anyone’s fault whether they find themselves in the former or the latter category. It has to do with one’s own relationships to peers and family and others in their own past.
Not to say I don’t question Pete in any way. I don’t like the “player” as a concept very much, and what does he mean he has a choice between being a nice guy and a bad boy? Again, bad in what way? Actually his course of action is kind of obvious if you think about it. He should find one of these women who are feminist but attracted to bad boys, hook up with her in his bad boy avatar, and then join with her in her feminism — all solved, and without ever having to be one of the dreaded “nice guys” at all.
Z, the chuckle was an indulgent one that recognized that it is hard work to change one’s life. I give the same chuckle when a student says to me “Hugo, this take-home final is really hard!” I laugh and say, “I know, but I believe you can do this. Keep at it.”
Truly, Hugo, I think you need to point out to Pete that he doesn’t seem to be looking for peers that challenge him or his politics. He’s operating from presumptions and false binaries.
Yes, he is. But PCC has a tiny, tiny feminist club. It’s a commuter school that’s 82% non white, and has one of the highest percentages of ESL students of any community college in the nation. This is not fertile ground for traditional feminist organizing –of course, that’s what makes trying to do the work so exciting! But Pete is in a different situation than if he were at a major state university or a liberal arts college. That’s not a defense, but it is an explanation.
humbition says just what was going through my mind; without knowing just what unfeminist things Pete is doing with young women, I really don’t know how hard Hugo should have been on him. Is he getting a friend to play the part of “wingman” and lie and say that he’s a pilot, so that he can get laid? Doing a bit of macho role playing with a young woman who’s indicated she finds that sort of role playing sexy? Lying about his real views about abortion so some woman who totally disagrees with him on the issue will sleep with him? Taking the lead and paying all the bills on all his dates, even though in feminist theory both things would be divided between the couple?
without knowing just what unfeminist things Pete is doing with young women, I really don’t know how hard Hugo should have been on him.
This is true. But one he’s doing is pretty clear: he’s relating to women and thinking about women’s reactions as potential girlfriends or lovers, period. Why isn’t he worried about what his female friends think about him?
McBoing is quite correct–I wonder how many women (or, in his words, “girls”) Pete really knows at all, if he thinks the world is divided into “those who like decent, strong, feminist men” and “those who put out”.
Q Grrl, ultimately, I go with what works.
As you’ve said in the past, Hugo, you’re a man. It’s no skin off your nose, except in an intellectual guilty kinda way, if you tell Pete to go ahead and treat women as inferiors to increase his pool of available pussy. Because, bluntly, that’s exactly what you’ve done, with the excuse that feminist is soooo hard and, gosh, there’ll be plenty of time for him to develop into a decent man, once he’s gotten all the humping out of his system. So yes, it “works” for you and for Pete.
You know, I think the operative phrase here is “I have a lot more success when I don’t try and be pro-feminist”. I’m guessing the problem here is not whether or not he’s pro-feminist, but how visibly he’s trying. He’ll have more success when he doesn’t try to be anything.
My boyfriend is pro-feminist, but it didn’t come up in our first conversation. It didn’t come up until the topic was relevant. He might even have paid for a meal here and there.
If you approach a girl and essentially say “Hi my name is Pete and I’m pro-feminist”… well, it’s not really appealing. By putting that front and center, you’re indicating that you see her primarily as an instance of the category “woman”, when she probably just wants you to interact with her as one individual to another (which would be the truly egalitarian thing to do).
It’s unclear to me in what ways he “tries” to be pro-feminist, which makes it hard to evaluate what is going on. Wearing a t-shirt that says it is not going to reel in women, and it’s not particularly genuine either. However, listening, not interrupting, trading off on decision-making, acting like her opinion really matters and not making a point of doing those things because that’s what you should be doing anyway… is that really hurting his dating prospects?
As you pointed out, confidence is appealing. And abandoning a pro-feminist approach to life, or otherwise changing your behavior in order to please potential sexual partners is not a particularly confident thing to do. If he does the good feminist guy thing and, for example, confronts other men about their attitudes even when there are no women around, I don’t see how this is going to make him less sexy to women (since, you know, they’re not around when he does this you’d think it would have no bearing). To do so, thought, takes an underlying confidence, which *is* appealing.
I dunno… I think you let him off easy. He still has the ideas in his head that 1) pro-feminism is making him unsexy and 2) being sexy is more important. He’s wrong on both counts.
But one he’s doing is pretty clear: he’s relating to women and thinking about women’s reactions as potential girlfriends or lovers, period.
True. That and the expressed desire to be a “player” are the things that bug me on Pete’s end. The business about his having less success with women when he tries to be pro-feminist may just mean that he’s more awkward about whatever he’s doing to try to be pro-feminist.
From the rest of the discussion, it’s pretty clear he sees ‘pro-feminist’ as ‘being a dull wimp’–as though the only choices are to push women around, or let them push you around. Lovely.
You know, when women approach an all male group and challenge them on their misogyny, we’re called man-haters, ball busters, dykes, and harpies. Don’t kid yourself that a man challenging other men is brave or exceptionally impressive.
Q_Grrl, I would suggest that you approach them in a less antagonistic way. If I “challenged you on your misandry” you’d probably feel outraged about my assumption. I just think you’re framing the debate in an aggressive way to immediately call somebody a misogynist/misandrist – the debate is inevitably going to spiral downwards from that point on.
I wear “personality specs” when I talk to people. I focus on their personality below the bluster of performance. Their gender/race is noted the same as the clothes they wear – arbitrary facts. Honestly, it works. It really does. I get on with people I never thought I would because I choose not to base my opinion of them on their gender/class/race/other arbitrary factors.
I agree with Q_Grrl’s (and mythago’s) thoughtful responses. As a 23 year old woman, I don’t buy one bit the excuse that there aren’t any girls digging pro-feminist men (non-patriarchal men). And I certainly don’t accept the argument that all or even most young feminist women just want a guy who bosses them around and disrespects them — metamanda says it right there.
On another note, Hugo, I’m suprised you mentioned the ethnic composition of students at your school that way — it seems you were insinuating that ethnic diversity makes the school less likely to have many feminists. Who do you think is reading bell hooks, gloria anzaldua, patricia collins, etc etc? White people aren’t the only feminists.
Hugo, I came up with a one-sentence summation of my thoughts yesterday while weeding the dahlias:
Pete should not judge the strength of his morals and convictions upon the weakness of other’s.
Nor should he be guided to do so. He is clearly confused as to why some young women are not feminist and want “bad” guys. That last thing that should be suggested to him is that those young women should be the bedrock for his current or future feminism.
Perplexed: the words, “approach an all male group and challenge them on their misogyny” were from Hugo’s original post. I did not specifically mean to suggest that Pete (or Hugo) was/is misogynistic. Far from it, actually. I am attempting to challenge Hugo in his role as a mentor to young men. He holds considerable power, as I assume that he is even more engaging and thoughtful in person, with students that he has spent time with. There is a very fine line when mentoring, which if crossed imparts no new knowledge and serves to solidify the confusion that the student brings to the mentor, with the end result being a codification of ideas that the student subconciously sensed were not healthy or right.
Pete knows that his convictions vis-a-vis feminism are right — the crux for him is that those convictions hinder his perceived, and age-specific, needs for dating and sexual encounters. My criticism of Hugo’s approach is that Pete was quite tacitly encouraged to forgo his convictions in lieu of Hugo’s experience that time matures us, often with a strengthening of character and morals. Unfortunately Hugo and Pete seem to take the approach that feminism only affects those women that they are intimately involved with: mothers, sisters, wives, or romantic interests. Meanwhile, there is a conservative political agenda hammering down the doors of the political progress that women have made over the last 80 some years. Women can no longer count on safe and legal abortions, women can’t get emergency contraception when needed, the CDC has created governmental guidelines that encourage healthcare providers to view all women between menarche and menopause as “pre-conceptive”, women’s political needs, in 2006, are still seen as special interest or identity politics — even by the progressive wings of American politics.
So, I find it difficult to swallow that Hugo’s advice suggests that time will heal Pete’s confusion and wavering conviction, allowing Pete to focus solely on his ego need for romantic and sexual intimacy, hoping that once Pete learns that these needs are rather ephemeral, he can then return to the matter of women’s humanity and the political climate that is working so hard to deny this to women.
It just doesn’t add up very well for me. I can’t afford to fight politics on one hand and soothingly pat confused male egos on the other. I choose politics; Hugo chose the comfort. And I thank him for that. But I feel he skirted a very dangerous negotiation of priorities, and I told him so in my typical aggressive, take-no-prisoners way.
FWIW, on the “women like bad boys” matter, the only sense in which I’ve ever liked “bad boys” is that I would go for the good singer, guitar player, poet, or would be writer over the guy who seemed headed for the high salary career path. And, when I was younger, being just a little bit (but functionally) druggy wasn’t a drawback. I’ve never liked “bad boys” in the sense of wanting guys to dominate or mistreat me, and I haven’t known a lot of other women who have, either.
Likewise, “alpha males” can be attractive if “alpha” means a guy with energy and ideas who can inspire a whole room full of people. If “alpha” means “will boss me around,” the guy’s attractiveness goes way down real fast.
As far as the ethnic composition of the college is concerned, I certainly don’t wish to reinforce the notion that feminism is a “white woman’s thing.” But there is a particular suspicion towards feminism among women from far more conservative cultures.
You could say “82% non-white, many from very traditional, conservative cultures” to clear that up in the future.
I will — my phrasing was poor. As I often say “mea culpa”!
How is Pete – being “non-feminist” with young women? IF it is not bringing up Feminism directly in a first conversation, that seems fine to me. IF he’s being: “tough” – in ways that disrespect young women that is simply wrong. IF he needs to be assertive, that’s good to know, while that needs to not be at the expense of listening to and respecting women.
I think that Pete’s ties to other young men is important. He needs to listen to and talk with other young men who have similar feelings and struggle with them – NOT – “how to score”, but how to relate in ways that are positive.
It may be hard to find such men, but that is a good challenge.
I think that Pete also needs to seek friendships with young women (as well as with young men). He sounds isolated – needing friendships in general that aren’t pressured. Most of them may not turn out to ever be romantic – tough – having friends is a horrible thing to be stuck with!
Many good points have been made by many of you here!
Thanks!
A few observations.
This whole discussion has been very much like one of those old psychological exercises in which one looks at an inkblot and tells what one sees. The original encounter was so vague that everyone projects something different into it.
Hugo and I both projected into it aspects of our own personal relational struggles in our youth, aspects that may not apply at all to Pete given that he defines himself very differently. And the social groups, cliques, assumptions of today are probably very different than when we were younger.
I really don’t understand the whole social background of the whole “nice guy” cliche as it is expressed today. It did not really exist in that form when I was younger, and Lynn Gazis-Sax’s equation of “bad boys” with poets and “nice guys” with the “high salary career path” surprised me. I almost would imagine it the other way around!
I have been noticing, in these internet discussions, an asymmetry between men and women in how they view the “personal is political” imperatives of feminism vis-a-vis relationships. Men, who in this culture have to take more of the initiative in starting sexual/romantic relationships, tend to worry inordinately about how to go about doing this — and worry about being able to apply feminist ethics to it (especially if they feel these might not “work”). Women, on the other hand, seem to apply feminist ethics more to behavior within sexual/romantic relationships which are already formed, or of course, outside the dimension of these relationships and in the wider society.
Although gross generalizations are never correct, to the extent that this one is, let me just say that in these latter dimensions, the ones I seem to see women bringing up, I don’t personally cut anybody any slack for not being “feminist” yet (which I see as a matter of applying basic human decency to people you profess to care about, or even to those you don’t).
Q grrl wrote…
Don’t kid yourself that a man challenging other men is brave or exceptionally impressive. It’s not even virtuous. More precisely, it’s a base-level human reaction to injustice — and no man should be given kudos for simply rising to the least common denominator.
If Pete has a choice then reading the above would suggest the path of least resistence is to follow the jerk and consult Ross Jeffries. Why not? There would seem to be no incentive to do otherwise would there? Christianity rewards the sinner for repenting and the rewards extend to eternal life. It could be argued that these rewards are greater than any earthly rewards and hence choosing to be a Christian is the best choice as, I think, Pascal reasoned. No virtue in doing the right thing?
A woman challenging a man, in this respect, may be no big deal, a man challenging a man could be a very big deal. Seeing things from anothers POV often provides a different perspective which is not at all as obvious as it may appear at first glance.
Q Grrl also wrote…
can’t afford to fight politics on one hand and soothingly pat confused male egos on the other. I choose politics; Hugo chose the comfort
I am not sure Hugo has chosen comfort. I agree with his choice. Confused any person’s ego sometimes needs a pat. Are dichotomies really choices?
be well.
and Lynn Gazis-Sax’s equation of “bad boys” with poets and “nice guys” with the “high salary career path” surprised me. I almost would imagine it the other way around!
I was guessing that, if women are saying themselves that they prefer “bad boys,” they might mean “guys my parents or grandparents wouldn’t want me to go out with.” Hence the equation of “bad boys” with poets. I can see how guys who your elders don’t like could be extra sexy, and how it could be fun to feel cool and defiant together, but I can’t imagine why anyone would want to date “bad boys” if “bad boys” actually means guys who are bad to you.
On the other hand, maybe the “women prefer bad boys to nice guys” meme is mostly guys dissing their successful competition.
I think you’re right about it being like looking into an inkblot and trying to figure out what it looks like.
Men, who in this culture have to take more of the initiative in starting sexual/romantic relationships, tend to worry inordinately about how to go about doing this — and worry about being able to apply feminist ethics to it (especially if they feel these might not “work”).
I tend to think of feminism in the initial approach only as applying to those approaches that are actually threatening and scary: the drunk who walks up to me in a party, puts his arm around me, and announces he’ll beat up any other guy who tries the same (the only guy I ever pulled the fake number stunt on, out of concern for my own ability to get away from him safely), the guy who comes on to people whose salary or grades he controls, the guy who refuses to stop his approaches when told to buzz off. Anyone who is “successful” by those kinds of methods should of course still knock it off, since chances are good that the woman is fearful rather than willing.
Other than that, I mainly apply feminist ethics to relationships already formed.
I’d delurk to post on this, but Q Grrl has already expressed what I was thinking, and far more eloquently than I could have.
Q Grrl, do you have a blog??
Thanks Lynn Gazis-Sax for responding to what I had to say, and for clarifying it in doing so.
I have a blog about birds and nature, sorta. Or I would if I paid any attention to it.
Q – I love birds and nature. You should link.
Hugo – I’m kinda there with SingOut, as I agree mostly with Q-grrl. With a few caveats – I recall very clearly how stupid/naive/YOUNG I was at 20. I have recently begun rereading journals that begin when I was 24 – and even then my words were often cringe-worthy. So I guess it’s a mixed bag, what I think. Stepwise is best for real change, and Pete is showing an interest in feminism; this is a good thing. Being a “player”? That sucks. He can do a lot of women a lot of damage with that kind of attitude.
I feel a little out of my element commenting here.
As usual, though – thank you for a thoughtful, interesting post. I enjoy coming here to see what you have to say and also to hear what your readers have to say. You maintain a very good atmosphere for discussion.
Hi again, Hugo, I am very impressed by this post. The issue of female desires, and the mixed messages that so many men get about them, is a very important and under-discussed subject. I have had the same intuitions as Pete, though I went through this at 17 (I am now 20). What I realized was that if I continued trying to be the perfect pro-feminist Sensitive New Age Guy, I was going to be lonely for a very long time. It seemed that if I took feminist ideas to their conclusions, it would either require me to be deliberately celibate (like Stoltenberg and Jensen), or it would require me to act in such a way that the vast majority of women wouldn’t be attracted to me at all, which was just another route to celibacy.
The worst part was that nobody seemed to even be talking about this issue! I grew up thinking women were supposed to want Sensitive New Age Guys, so when they obviously didn’t, my only conclusion was that there must be something wrong with them. At this point in my life, the more I tried to be ethically perfect, the less well it worked, and the more I started to become bitter and hate everyone else.
Eventually, I just said “screw this! I’m not going to be a celibate monk in devotion to feminism,” because I wasn’t willing to give up my chances of having relationships. For a while, I rejected feminism almost completely, but since then I have come to accept certain aspects of it. I think the difficultly here is reconciling the personal and the political, when they advocate different courses of action. We all know the problems of ignoring the political. Yet I don’t think it’s reasonable or practical to ask everyone to completely sacrifice their personal life in service of the political. If people had to completely sacrifice their personal life (such as the goals to have some kinds of romantic relationships with women in this case), then we wouldn’t really have persons any more, we would just be faceless superegos.
What I did suggest to Pete was that he consider the possibility that what was really attractive to women wasn’t necessarily the “bad boy”, but the confident man.
I think this is on the right track (well, it’s the track I’m on). Still, there is one thing that bothers me: why should you have to be the confident man? I think the “confidence” ideal is a lot less destructive than the “dominance” ideal, but it still seems to perpetuate gendered dynamics.
Women finding confidence attractive is a gendered expectation. Women don’t have to confident to be attractive to men (for me, confidence is a plus, but it doesn’t actually make me more attracted to her). For the most part, men do. The net effect is that men are required to be more confident than the women they want to date to have any reasonable chance( with the vast majority of women). Confidence is part and parcel of masculinity, just like dominance, it’s just less destructive. When you take a bunch of relationships in which the guy is more confident than the woman, it creates power imbalances. Over time, these power imbalances are enshrined in the norms which govern heterosexual interaction. It creates a hierarchy: confident guys on top, then women, then guys who aren’t confident on the bottom.
In the early stages of embracing pro-feminism, too many young men (including my younger self) tend to walk on eggshells around women. These young men are idealistic, and intensely eager to reject traditional male privilege and modes of behavior. But the end result, all too often, is a most unattractive kind of indecisiveness! I went through a period in my own life where I figured my job as a pro-feminist was to always, always, always, ask a woman what she wanted. “Where do you want to go to dinner?” “Are you feeling okay?” “Is there anything I can do for you?” “Would you like to talk about it?” While showing concern for another person’s feelings is appropriate, it’s all too easy for insecure “newbie” pro-feminist men to drive women stark raving bonkers by, as cousin Dinah said, constantly trying to take a woman’s emotional temperature. Constant, anxious solicitousness is not, um, sexy.
Very true. I used to be one of those men. Still, I think that it is a reasonable, and perhaps true impression that taking (some) feminist ideas to their conclusion would mandate this kind of “walking on eggshells” behavior.
I think the practical solution is to adopt the kind of decisiveness you described. Yet I think decisiveness also carries a similar relationship to the gender system that confidence does. There are plenty of indecisive women, and they do just fine in relationships. For example, my ex was incredibly indecisive, just like me, but apparently the rule was that since I had the penis, I was the one who had to make all the decisions even though it was a lot of work. Why is it that guys (usually) need to be decisive to get dates, while women don’t? And when you get a society in which most of men are more decisive in any given relationship (because the indecisive men can’t get dates, or they learn to be decisive), then it contributes to power imbalances.
I told Pete last week that I’d found that the most difficult thing to do was to become clear on the difference between an attractive and compelling confidence and a privileged arrogance.
I do believe there is a difference. Yet it seems to me at this point that even “compelling confidence” means that I must continue to “do masculinity,” it’s just a less destructive version of masculinity. My intuition is that either (a) doing those aspects of masculinity, such as “confidence” and “decisiveness,” isn’t actually in conflict with feminist ethics, (b) there is a conflict, and feminist ethics are right, (c) there is a conflict, and feminist ethics are wrong. If (b) is entirely correct, which I doubt it is for reasons that get rather complicated, then I would have to act in a way that I know would result in my spending most of my life lonely and celibate. Actually, I think the answer is a bit of all of those options, depending on which aspects of sexuality we are talking about, and what we consider “feminist ethics” to be (considering that feminist views on ethics are not homogenous).
In short, I don’t think it’s possible from a practical standpoint for guys to date and have relationships with women without “doing masculinity,” and acting within at least some aspects of the gender system. (The percentage of women who don’t require men to be masculine in certain ways is just too small, right now.) I think the best questions to ask are: how can we handle relationships in a way that keeps gender and power dynamics to a minimum? And if we must reproduce some aspects of gender, how we produce the aspects that are the least damaging? I think this way of looking at it finds a balance between the individual level and the political level. I actually do have some tentative answers to these questions, but I’ll save them for another time.
there appears to be a persistent stereotype regarding women as pro “jerks.”
That’s probably true where the opposite of being a jerk is blind chivalry. Yes, a woman is going to be more attracted to a man who interacts with her than to a man who does Things Women Like regardless of how she feels about it, or who, for example, makes a huge point of not being overtly sexual because Women Don’t Like Sex.
By that definition, any man who is interested in a woman for herself, as a person, and who talks to her as though she’s as likely to have something valuable to say as he is, and who treats her like an equal as best he can, is a “jerk.”
I can’t help wanting to discuss some of the issues Aegis brings up.
“Sensitive new age guy.” When I use that term (somewhat self-ironically) to describe myself, I see it as a feature of temperament, a permanent aspect of myself. I have learned that it is in itself neither feminist nor non-feminist. One’s temperament or constitution is neither good or bad in itself; it’s just who you are. It is good for oneself, because self-acceptance is good. It may or may not apply to how Pete sees himself, because Pete sees himself as having a choice in the matter.
“Feminist ethics” for male, heterosexual, subject position. If such a thing exists, it does not specify a particular temperament as better or worse. It may only consist in refraining from doing things which harm women, individually or as a class (as well as in engaging in social action which benefits women as a class). Temperamentally masculine and temperamentally feminine men are equally capable of performing feminist ethics. Or shall I say, feminist women in relationships to men can value and be attracted to men of different temperaments (depending on what kind of man each woman is attracted to) and feel that these men are “feminist.” That is an empirical observation.
“Confidence” as gendered expectation. Yes, damn it. But it is also an expectation for performance in an individualistic, competitive, capitalist economy, and as such it affects all genders. Plus, there are plenty of testimonies by women on the web about how their romantic/sexual lives suffered before they learned confidence.
Gendered expectations in relationships. I do think there is a free-floating tendency, even among some feminists who understand how “femininity” is socially constructed and to some extent a “performance,” to consider “masculinity” as something “natural” and animal. (I see this tendency strongly among certain male feminists by the way.) I think that feminists should pay attention to the fact that many men find they have to “perform” masculinity, even for putatively feminist women, and that those men to whom this performance comes less naturally can find this grating. But men who find this grating should reflect on the facts that women are products of their society too, that culture changes slowly and sometimes paradoxically, and that everyone deserves to have their own preferences — even though the preference for less “masculine” men may be less prevalent overall than that for more “masculine” men. And over time one should seek out relationships which don’t demand that one “perform” gendered expectations against one’s character or temperament.
Well, this topic looks like it’s pretty much over and done with, I just wanted to respond to humbition:
“Confidence” as gendered expectation. Yes, damn it. But it is also an expectation for performance in an individualistic, competitive, capitalist economy, and as such it affects all genders. Plus, there are plenty of testimonies by women on the web about how their romantic/sexual lives suffered before they learned confidence.
Men who are considered “less confident”, for whatever reason, are probably unlikely to have much in the way of a romantic/sexual life at all, in my experience. From what I’ve read on other boards devoted to this sort of topic, men who display “passive” forms of body language and have a hard time approaching generally will not have any success with women. It’s true that there are women out there who are both capable and willing to approach, but they seem to be very much in the minority.
For women, again I’m going by what I’ve read from women on this subject on other message boards and blogs, not being confident might adversely affect the number of men who express interest and make one more likely to wind up with a potentially abusive partner. Yet there is probably a significantly greater chance that an unconfident woman will at least experience a relationship (even if she may later well wish she hadn’t) than an unconfident male.
Gendered expectations in relationships. I do think there is a free-floating tendency, even among some feminists who understand how “femininity” is socially constructed and to some extent a “performance,” to consider “masculinity” as something “natural” and animal. (I see this tendency strongly among certain male feminists by the way.) I think that feminists should pay attention to the fact that many men find they have to “perform” masculinity, even for putatively feminist women, and that those men to whom this performance comes less naturally can find this grating. But men who find this grating should reflect on the facts that women are products of their society too, that culture changes slowly and sometimes paradoxically, and that everyone deserves to have their own preferences — even though the preference for less “masculine” men may be less prevalent overall than that for more “masculine” men. And over time one should seek out relationships which don’t demand that one “perform” gendered expectations against one’s character or temperament.
Personally, I identify biologically as male, but I really don’t have much in common with my male friends. Masculinity, as far as I can tell, seems to involve a love of sports, fixing/building things, various forms of aggression, trying to “one-up” your male peers in social settings, being an “alpha male” even if you tempermentally are unsuited for the role, etc. I really can’t identify with any of these features. I’m very much a follower/loner who hates sports, can’t operate any sort of tool without being a danger to myself or others and I’m not a fan of fighting or confrontation in general. Many people who don’t already know me as stunned to learn that I used to be a paratrooper and that I have a love of firearms (which you can’t own where I live anyway). It’s about all that I have going for me that is stereotypically male. I just don’t feel like I’m a “male” in any sense of the word beyond one’s plumbing.
This is not to say I identify as “female” or “feminine” either. I’m just me and I happen to identify with and get along with my close female friends better than my male ones. I know other guys in my boat and while we tend to have a lot of close female friends, we’re pretty much ignored when it comes to the dating word because we’re “not real men.” I’ve gotten that sort of treatment from a variety of women, feminist and not. It’s incredibly frustrating. I can certainly understand anti-feminist women, or women who simply aren’t aware of feminism, holding these views. It’s when I get my androgyny shoved in my face by a self-declared, “strong, feminist woman” that I’m just left bewildered. You’d think that someone who is so utterly aware of how gender is structured in our culture would be accepting of males who fall outside the mainstream, but I keep hearing otherwise.
This should in no way imply that I feel entitled to attention from these women, not at all. It’s just that I find that being castigated by them as an “unmanly loser” is at complete odds with what most feminists I know claim regarding the construction of gender in our society.
For women, again I’m going by what I’ve read from women on this subject on other message boards and blogs, not being confident might adversely affect the number of men who express interest and make one more likely to wind up with a potentially abusive partner. Yet there is probably a significantly greater chance that an unconfident woman will at least experience a relationship (even if she may later well wish she hadn’t) than an unconfident male.
No offense, but do you realize how bad this sounds? That it’s better for a woman to be in an abusive relationship than for a man to go without a relationship?
Women (I for one) constantly hear about how vital confidence is to attraction. ‘Be confident!’ Unfortunately, for women this often means confidence in our looks, and unfortunately, our culture does everything that it can to undermine our confidence in our looks, so the sisyphean task of confidence definitely falls upon women too.
Plus to be honest I’m not really sure it is men who initiate relationships. My mom and all her friends used to say that it’s *always* the woman who initiates/chooses the man, he just doesn’t realize it. (I’m not sure I agree, but I guess that their perceptions are/were pretty representative for their generation). The woman chooses by *acting* in some way, whether it’s drawn out eye contact, flirtatious touching, extra smiles, etc. If a man is so focused on his own ‘moves’ and ‘approach’ that he’s not paying attention to how women are interacting with him, it makes sense that he wouldn’t realize how much initiating women do and also would fail to pick up on the times when women initiate with him. Maybe if he treated women like interesting people that were worthy of his attention instead of projects to work on, attract, or capture, he would notice…
Tara: No offense, but do you realize how bad this sounds? That it’s better for a woman to be in an abusive relationship than for a man to go without a relationship?
That certainly wasn’t my intention. I was just stating that a lock of confidence affects men and women in different ways. Unconfident men generally don’t have a shot in the first place, unconfident women run the risk of winding up with a dangerous partner. I make no judgement as to which is worse. Both are pretty bad in different ways.
Women (I for one) constantly hear about how vital confidence is to attraction. ‘Be confident!’ Unfortunately, for women this often means confidence in our looks, and unfortunately, our culture does everything that it can to undermine our confidence in our looks, so the sisyphean task of confidence definitely falls upon women too.
Perhaps. Men do get judged heavily based on appearance too. Heck, in any setting people are judged on appearance. Again, though, I strongly suspect that “confidence”, as it applies to relationships, is much different from one gender to the next and falls more heavily on men. Again, this is in the general, abstract sense.
Plus to be honest I’m not really sure it is men who initiate relationships. My mom and all her friends used to say that it’s *always* the woman who initiates/chooses the man, he just doesn’t realize it. (I’m not sure I agree, but I guess that their perceptions are/were pretty representative for their generation). The woman chooses by *acting* in some way, whether it’s drawn out eye contact, flirtatious touching, extra smiles, etc. If a man is so focused on his own ‘moves’ and ‘approach’ that he’s not paying attention to how women are interacting with him, it makes sense that he wouldn’t realize how much initiating women do and also would fail to pick up on the times when women initiate with him. Maybe if he treated women like interesting people that were worthy of his attention instead of projects to work on, attract, or capture, he would notice…
I’m so sick and tired of hearing this. Look, just because some of us are too oblivious to pick up on your “signals” does not mean that we must therefore be self-centered solipsists who think of women are mere objects. Speaking from my own experience, when I meet a woman who I get along with well my first thoughts are generally along the lines of, “Wow, this person is really cool/very sweet/a great conversationalist/etc.” If anything, I don’t recognize them as a potential romantic partner until some time later, when they’ve already decided that they like me “like a brother.”
It’s not that I’m trying so hard and objectifying you so greatly that I miss out on your oh-so-obvious signals, it’s that because women generally just won’t come out and say what they want, we both lose out. Believe me, I do greatly appreciate the women in my life. Like I stated in my previous post on this topic, my male friends are generally bewildering.
Glitch,
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. If the problem is that it takes you a while to think of someone as a potential romantic partner, what does that have to do with confidence? Plus, if someone gets to know you and decides that you’re not good romantic material, isn’t that a good thing? The better you know someone the better position you’re in to know whether a romantic relationship with them would make you happy. Plus, what’s the point of the woman coming out and saying what she wants when you don’t know what you want?
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. If the problem is that it takes you a while to think of someone as a potential romantic partner, what does that have to do with confidence?
When I do become aware of someone as a romantic possibility, I tend to have problems being around them. I get, for lack of a better word, wierd. I don’t have the confidence to actually ask them out, but I feel strongly for them, so I tend to just get quiet.
Plus, if someone gets to know you and decides that you’re not good romantic material, isn’t that a good thing? The better you know someone the better position you’re in to know whether a romantic relationship with them would make you happy.
I agree, but to a point. Sure, it’s always nice to make a new close friend, even if it wasn’t quite what you were shooting for. Still, repeated rejection gets old after awhile. I tend to be friends with the women I actually manage the nerve to ask out for months before I do so. There have been a couple of exceptions, but knowing someone as a friend first is generally what I shoot for, even if it never worked out in the past. In that time I waste they often get bored or tired of waiting and decide to move on to other fish. In my experience you certainly want to get to know a potential partner, but not too well it seems.
Plus, what’s the point of the woman coming out and saying what she wants when you don’t know what you want?
I know what I want, it just takes awhile to figure it out. I wouldn’t object to a few dates in the meantime. Isn’t that how things normally work? You go out with someone for awhile and spend the time evaluating if they’re really for you or not? I’ve tried getting to know someone on dates before, I’ll admit, and it didn’t work out. I’m a good friend to a lot of people but someone who’s pretty difficult to be intimate with. I wouldn’t rule out the dating method and I’d like to give it another go, but I tend to not notice obvious signs of interest. The women I’ve gone on dates with made were they sort that I said I found fun and interesting. The difference was that they made it really clear they wanted me to ask them out. By “really clear”, I mean much more obvious than just flirting. I can sometimes detect glimmers of interest from women I’ve just met, but unless I have a really obvious sign of affection, I just don’t feel capable of asking for a date. That’s where the self-doubt comes in.
I feel for Glitch, having gone through similar patches, enough to make a few comments/ a bit of gratuitous advice.
Women choosing: actually that’s absolutely true. Chris Rock has a line in his stand up act to that effect. But they have to see you first, and see you as a potential partner — which means you have to act as if someone might see you as one. And possibly someone is; when I was in that state of mind I was oblivious, but now that I am in a very long-term committed relationship, I can look back and see opportunities and possibilities all over my past. Actually what you have to do is imagine yourself as someone else’s object of affection, because if you lack that imaginative leap of empathy, you can’t pick up on when a woman is interested.
I know of some very unlikely couples and you absolutely should not give up. Any woman or man who calls you a “loser” is not worthy of you, and is not your friend. Dump them, dump them unmercifully.
One always pulls one’s punches in trying to ask out a long-term friend, for fear of losing the comfort level one already has in the friendship. My versions of asking such people out were so ridiculous that “going through the motions” was an exaggeration. You need to ask out women you don’t know that well, so that you can handle possible rejection without always being reminded.
You need to figure out a kind of date — coffee date or whatever — which is as “safe” as possible in the sense of not being pushy, and at the same time clearly communicates that it’s a “date” rather than a move for a comfy friendship. I don’t know exactly what that is these days, but ask your women friends what one might be. Not the ones you’ve dropped because they called you a loser, though. They’re dead to you.
You were a paratrooper? You must get this a lot, but — maybe you could jump out of some planes. Metaphorically speaking. Well, actually, when you jump out of planes you have to survive. When you are asking women out, you don’t. Rejection hurts, but it’s better than living an endless dry spell — it’s pain now, but maybe not pain later. Who was it who said that if alcohol had the hangover first and the pleasure later, it would be a virtue? Hell, it would be a spiritual practice.
Oh, and any environmental organization that does hikes or nature walks — join it. Sierra Club, Audubon, whatever. Might not be the worst time to be an activist, either. Just remember, if it leads to something, it would be bad karma to cancel the membership.
If anything I say bothers you feel free to ignore it, it’s just some keystrokes on a computer.
Still, I think that it is a reasonable, and perhaps true impression that taking (some) feminist ideas to their conclusion would mandate this kind of “walking on eggshells” behavior.
Honestly, what I get from your post is that you felt a little uncomfortable about the idea of giving up some traditional privilege, and so you simply extrapolated feminism to a reductio ad absurdam so that you could cheerfully discard it. “Can’t have any of that stuff–why, I’ll be walking on eggshells next!”
You could get rich picking up a nickel for every false dichotomy the “don’t be a feminist” cheerleaders are putting out here. It’s not a choice between wimpy vs. obnoxious, player vs. celibate, feminist vs. caveman.
Actually in my opinion, “walking on eggshells” is an emotional, not a “logical,” reaction. To an emotional, not necessarily a strictly logical, extrapolation of certain ideas.
A predictable, and human, reaction.
Hi mythago,
mythago said:
Honestly, what I get from your post is that you felt a little uncomfortable about the idea of giving up some traditional privilege, and so you simply extrapolated feminism to a reductio ad absurdam so that you could cheerfully discard it. “Can’t have any of that stuff–why, I’ll be walking on eggshells next!”
Sure, no feminists come out and say that men should walk on eggshells. That was merely the side effect that occurred when I followed a bunch of feminist ideas to their conclusions (as humbition says). And I don’t think that following an idea to its logical conclusion is the same thing as a setting up a reductio ad absurdam. Would you have preferred that I had just followed feminist ideas in a half-assed way when it suited me to do so?
I maintain that to follow through on feminist ideas would have resulted in me spending most of my life lonely and celibate (either by choice, or because no woman would want me). Notice that radical pro-feminist men like John Stoltenberg and Robert Jensen follow celibacy as a part of their feminism, so if it’s a reduction ad adsurdamn to believe that feminism could lead to celibacy, then plenty of pro-feminist are committing it also.
Feminist theory locates masculinity, specifically “hegemonic masculinity” as involved in the oppression of women. To properly follow feminism, I would have to abandon hegemonic masculinity, yes? Yet my experiences with women have told me that to do this would mean sacrificing any kind of romantic relationships with women (except maybe if I got very lucky; the thing is, I don’t want my happiness in relationships with others to be based completely on “luck”).
For example, abandoning hegemonic masculinity would mean that I would need to avoid being more dominant, confident, assertive, or decisive than any woman I was interested in (because those traits are part of hegemonic masculinity, and can result in power differentials). Furthermore, being the initiator of sexual activity is also part of hegemonic masculinity and the gender system, so I would not be able to be more sexually proactive than the woman, or I would be reproducing the male-active, female-passive dynamic. Or is that a reductio adsurdum in your mind, and feminist ethics wouldn’t really mandate all of that? I do think there is plenty of room for other intepretations, but I think mine is at least reasonable, even if it is wrong. Also, I don’t think it’s insane to believe that feminism would advocate constantly taking the woman’s emotional temperature, as Hugo puts: haven’t feminists been saying that men should learn to focus more on emotions, learn to empathize better, and pay attention to female experiences in addition to male ones?
The problem is that if I was to drop all these aspects of hegemonic masculinity, the proportion of women who would be interested in relationships, or even just sex with me, would be very small. During the period of my life when I acted this way, I never had a single date; when I learned to better enact masculinity, it was like I had flipped a switch, and suddenly all these women became interested in me.
Keep in mind also that of the small percentage of women who don’t require the guy to be more dominant, confident, assertive, decisive, or sexually proactive than her, many of those women will already have boyfriends, or I might not be their type physically. In the end, my dating pool would become miniscule, which is why I am not surprised that I never got a date or saw much female interest when I acted this way, and why I am confident that I would have ended up spending most of my life lonely and celibate if I had continued down that path of following feminist ideas to their conclusions.
Basically, I cut a deal with masculinity. There are some aspects of hegemonic masculinity that I try to avoid, such as dominating women, although I have been enacting the confident/assertiveness/decisiveness aspects of masculinity. By not being overtly dominant (which is very hard for me anyway because of my temperament), I do hamper my success with women, yet since many women don’t require dominance and only require confidence, it’s not as if my chances with relationships would be destroyed (and I would much rather have a relationship in which I don’t have to dominate all the time). So it’s not quite true that I have discarded my feminist intuitions completely. Make of this what you will.
Aegis; I don’t see how *confidence*, *assertiveness* or *decisiveness* is hegemonically masculine or something to be eschewed by a “pro”feminist man(??)
You’re right – most of my friends, after high school didn’t choose partners who had no self-confidence, decisiveness, or assertiveness. Mainly because with very needy or damaged people often are seeking tons of caretaking work. It seems to me that a lot of my circle of friends, male and female, dated “hurt” folks in high school and were trying to save the world, and then they learned confidence in themselves and started meeting partners.
Your argument is extremely confusing to me: really. It’s like saying “Ah, well, when I didn’t bathe (because people bathe in the patriarchy), and I smelled bad all the time, the chicks didn’t dig me.”
Well. Yah.
On the other hand – dominance OVER – ie: “We’re going to this restaurant because I said so and I’m the MAN…”
Well, that ain’t going to buy you many dates even among women I know who wouldn’t consider themselves feminists.
No, Aegis, actually it was Hugo who said that “walking on eggshells” came from following feminist ideas to their conclusions.
I said that it was an emotional extrapolation, not a strictly logical one, just a human one.
I have also said, above, that there is evidently no feminist “rule” against temperamental or behavioral masculinity if this doesn’t harm women. Temperament is an inborn or at any rate a personal, difficult to change, matter, but temperament doesn’t make you feminist or non-feminist.
The ideal person should possibly have the versatility or flexibility to perform parts of both the masculine and the feminine, and then the wisdom to judge when to do so. It is probably wise not to throw out completely one toolkit or the other.
Finding a partner who is compatible with your temperament is partly a matter of luck, yes, but partly a matter of looking and of selection.
Otherwise your experiences are valid, for you, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand by any means.
Good questions, Arwen.
Aegis; I don’t see how *confidence*, *assertiveness* or *decisiveness* is hegemonically masculine or something to be eschewed by a “pro”feminist man(??)
That’s not quite how I put it: I said that in a given interaction or relationship, it is hegemonically masculine for the man to act more confident/assertive/decisive/(brave/bold/stoic) than the woman. If the man in that relationship has more of those qualities, then, all else being equal, who is probably going to have more power in that relationship? He will.
Your argument is extremely confusing to me: really. It’s like saying “Ah, well, when I didn’t bathe (because people bathe in the patriarchy), and I smelled bad all the time, the chicks didn’t dig me.”
This cracked me up. First, you’re right that if X happens in a patriarchy, it’s not necessarily unethical to do X. It depends on whether X is related to creating or perpetuating the patriarchy. Bathing doesn’t create power differentials in relationships (unless you fight over who gets to use the bathroom??), but the same is not always true for the traits I listed. There is no (obvious) relationship between bathing and masculinity, yet there is a relationship between all those traits I listed, and masculinity. If I was to describe John Wayne or James Bond, I might use adjectives like “confident/assertive/decisive/brave/bold/stoic;” I doubt I would think about their bathing habits.
humbition said:
No, Aegis, actually it was Hugo who said that “walking on eggshells” came from following feminist ideas to their conclusions.
I said that it was an emotional extrapolation, not a strictly logical one, just a human one.
I think we agree on this issue.
I have also said, above, that there is evidently no feminist “rule” against temperamental or behavioral masculinity if this doesn’t harm women. Temperament is an inborn or at any rate a personal, difficult to change, matter, but temperament doesn’t make you feminist or non-feminist.
I wish I could convince myself of this. First, I think if a guy had a temperamental disposition that led him to be dominating and aggressive, I doubt feminists would be fine with that. His temperament would not get him off the hook. You say there would be no rule against behavioral masculinity if this doesn’t harm women, but I’m not sure if feminists would always agree (at least with the way you frame it). I think many feminists would say that “behavioral masculinity” contributes to a culture if which females are subordinated, so that all manifestations of behavioral masculinity would contribute, even if just indirectly, to harm towards women.
The ideal person should possibly have the versatility or flexibility to perform parts of both the masculine and the feminine, and then the wisdom to judge when to do so. It is probably wise not to throw out completely one toolkit or the other.
Finding a partner who is compatible with your temperament is partly a matter of luck, yes, but partly a matter of looking and of selection.
Agreed.
Notice that radical pro-feminist men like John Stoltenberg and Robert Jensen follow celibacy
John Stoltenberg follows celibacy? Did I miss something? I thought he was a gay man who had an open marriage to Andrea Dworkin, in which they both loved each other but were free to have outside relationships. That doesn’t seem like any kind of celibate to me. Are you sure it wasn’t just that he had a sex life that wasn’t focused on sexual intercourse? Which would be, you know, fine if that was the sex life that suited Dworkin and Stoltenberg.
On turning friendships romantic, that was a big reason (besides my being just plain shy) that my signals always tended to be the subtle kind that drives Glitch nuts. I tended to be somewhat friendly with whomever I became attracted to, and, well, given the choice between the bird in the hand – friendship – and the bird on the bush, I wasn’t eager to risk the bird in the hand. Though I wonder if sometimes it might have even worked better for the friendship to get the approach and rejection out in the open and be done with it, in some not too heavy handed way, rather than hinting around and risking having a friend who wasn’t sure how to tactfully draw the line. humbition’s probably right, though, about it being easier to ask out people you don’t know that well.
Aegis; Glad you liked the analogy. *g*.
I would argue that a confident, self-assured person of any gender is actually less likely to create or exploit a power imbalance in their relationship.
Frankly, the most horrific, domineering people I have had the misfortune to know have been ones with very poor self-images. As a teenager, I was one of those angsty wounded women: it was in part a deep relationship (non-sexual) with an incredibly confident, decisive, and self-respecting male friend that helped me to get there myself by 1) example, and 2) not having any need for my cringing ridiculousness to satisfy his own ego-doubts in comparison.
Anyway, I disagree with you. I don’t think being confident makes a person more powerful, unless they only date people who are suffering vast emotional damage. And the only reason I can fathom for dating someone emotionally crippled is for some sort of power differential. Which, in my books, is a motivation which proves lack of confidence.
Anyway. I’m feminist. I like men with self-confidence, assertiveness, and broad shoulders. I can take ‘em.
That’s not quite how I put it: I said that in a given interaction or relationship, it is hegemonically masculine for the man to act more confident/assertive/decisive/(brave/bold/stoic) than the woman. If the man in that relationship has more of those qualities, then, all else being equal, who is probably going to have more power in that relationship? He will.
And that’s where pro-feminism comes in. Nobody’s saying that pro-feminist men need to always reject all aspects of masculinity at all times, nor has anyone suggested that it’s wrong for men to be more decisive/assertive/confident/etc than women in any situation– that’s just a reversal of the status quo, still limiting and ultimately unproductive. What heterosexual pro-feminist men need to do, then, is be aware of the effect that the masculine/feminine dynamic has on their relationships, and strive toward making the relationship as egalitarian as possible despite the influences of gender socialization.
If a particular man is more confident and assertive than his girlfriend, and he wants to approach the relationship in a pro-feminist manner, I’d give him this advice:
*Recognize that the imbalance likely has much to do with gender socialization and male privilege– it doesn’t mean that he’s inherently superior to her, that his voice should “count” more than hers, or that he is automatically entitled to be “in charge.”
*Keep in mind that being more assertive means he will have an easier time voicing his opinion and making decisions, and avoid using that as an excuse to ignore/dismiss his partner’s opinion and make decisions unilaterally.
*Try to create an atmosphere in which the less confident/assertive person feels comfortable speaking up and making input in the decision-making process. Make it clear that her opinion is valuable, and know when it’s time to shut up and listen instead of monopolizing the conversation and talking over his quieter partner.
That’s it– no personality retooling or suppression required, just awareness and effort to avoid taking advantage of privilege. Feminists generally recognize that it’s unreasonable to expect people to never behave in ways that reinforce patriarchal norms– no matter how dedicated we are to feminist ideals, we have to make concessions on a daily basis to the society in which we live. That doesn’t give us a free pass to allow our behavior to go unexamined, though; while you don’t need to reject masculinity wholesale in order to be pro-feminist, you do need to be aware of the consequences of your playing that role and try to minimize your abuse of the privilege it affords you.
And I don’t think that following an idea to its logical conclusion is the same thing as a setting up a reductio ad absurdam. Would you have preferred that I had just followed feminist ideas in a half-assed way when it suited me to do so?
Ah, and now a false dichotomy. Are you taking a debate class?
I am not getting how you took ‘feminist ideas’ to the ‘logical conclusion’ that you must walk on eggshells around women at all times, so you might as well be a sexist. Would you equally argue that taking ‘anti-racist’ ideas to their logical conclusion means being meek and walking on eggshells around blacks, so that white people might as well just give up and be openly racist?
The problem is that if I was to drop all these aspects of hegemonic masculinity, the proportion of women who would be interested in relationships, or even just sex with me, would be very small.
The less picky you are, the more peole you get to date. If you dropped requirements for dates like “Must not shoot heroin” and “Should be interested in me for more than my money,” you’d probably be able to date more women, too–but why would you want to?
As others have pointed out, you seem to be assuming that masculinity = domineering sexism, and feminism = meek, deferential and passive. It’s a handy excuse to jettison feminism, but it isn’t really a measure of whether treating women like people condemns you to celibacy.
I mean, as long as we’re going to bat around anecdotes, I know several feminist men who have to proverbially beat women off with a stick. It’s not because they all look like Brad Pitt; it’s because they don’t believe feminism means giving up being confident, assertive, or masculine.
“For example, abandoning hegemonic masculinity would mean that I would need to avoid being more dominant, confident, assertive, or decisive than any woman I was interested in (because those traits are part of hegemonic masculinity, and can result in power differentials). Furthermore, being the initiator of sexual activity is also part of hegemonic masculinity and the gender system, so I would not be able to be more sexually proactive than the woman, or I would be reproducing the male-active, female-passive dynamic. ”
Wow — you need to work on your comprehension of feminist theory and politics. You’re so far off the mark I can’t even begin to rebut this. Either that or you’re deliberately misinterpreting the bulk of feminist work so that you can claim it is too difficult and puts you in a bleak and bitter hell.
On the other hand, if you cannot envision initiating sex without concommitently domineering a woman, then you have a tremendous up-hill battle. Similarly, if you are confusing self-confidence and physical strength with domination, then, well… you’re just.not.getting.it.
Good luck!
Pingback: Zatera Ul
hey there, Hugo — i’m here because of the fat carnival link, and after comments to that one pissed me off, i decided to check out the rest of the blog instead of blasting people in an old thread.
what strikes me as a lost opportunity in your talk with pete is a mention that the old saw of “what do women really want” is the wrong question altogether for anyone trying to actually have relationships with individual women (as opposed to marketing crap to them, or umm, teaching gender studies
. if i were to draw a conclusion from lots of data collection over many years of watching my fellow humans, it’s that people who think in these kinds of stereotypes don’t end up in happy relationships, ever, unless the clueplane manages to strafe them in the form of somebody who initially takes pity on them. feminism? completely irrelevant to their plight. and so i am not gonna talk about feminism, but about relationships.
here’s to Pete, if he’s for real:
women don’t all want one thing. women are not all attracted to one thing. the breadth of human turn-ons (and i don’t just mean that sexually) is infinite. and when one is interacting with one woman, the woman with whom one is considering a relationship, it doesn’t matter what an aggregate of women might be shown to want in a survey (even the rare survey with good methodology). aggregates are meaningless to personal relationships. it doesn’t matter whether you behave in pro-feminist ways if you’re chatting up feminist women who don’t care for your general demeanour. i would bet serious money that their rejection has nothing to do with your (embryonic) feminist beliefs at all.
the whole idea that women want jerks for sex? superficial malarkey, coined by superficial people. “jerk” is not a single trait; if she’s attracted to somebody you see as a jerk (are you objective to start with?), it’s maybe not what you perceive as the jerkhood that makes her hot, it’s something you don’t see. each of us wants a different combination of traits in our ideal partner, and when we’re young that combination isn’t all that clear to us, nor is it obvious which of the things we think we want really matter. we might think that we want one thing, and try and go for that, and then find that it doesn’t ever actually work — if we’re smart, we then learn from that (if we’re not, we end up married as often as liz taylor). we might not be as analytical about partner selection yet as we need to be. we might not be wise yet to the fact that our hormones sometimes make spectacularly bad choices (because they don’t care about long-term relationships; they’re there to propagate the species). we might not be honest yet about what we want because our upbringing has inculcated “proper behaviour” into us. and the whole idea of an ideal? bogus anyway.
you’ll discover that when you meet somebody with whom a relationship really clicks — suddenly you’ll be scratching lots of formerly “must have” items off your list.
be present as your own self, and select as potential partners those who find that attractive. don’t pretend to be somebody you’re not, and if you’re trying to do that because you’re working on being a better person with the help of projection, be honest about it. honesty is attractive to a lot of good people; those who need to be seduced by a sugar coating are probably not mature enough yet.
be a feminist if you feel that’s the right thing to do, not because it might get you chicks who dig oh-so-sensitive guys. furthermore, to do the right thing, you don’t have to be a feminist at all, and you don’t need to only hang out with feminist women. just make ethically sound choices. is 20 too young? you understand ethical dilemmas? then you’re not too young. if you’re not willing to make hard choices, then you’re not an ethical person at this time, and if you ever become one, the bad choices you make now are gonna bite you — but it’s entirely up to you which path you choose. is it more important to score than to behave ethically? go forth and spank that monkey. just don’t whine about what that choice buys you later. you know exactly what you are doing.
nevermind what women like jackie allegedly want — it’s likely not even true if one digs a little deeper. jackie probably just wants to have fun, raunchy sex with somebody who’s not on the “marriage material” list of her family, and she generalizes that to “dangerous assholes” because she doesn’t know any better. if you want fun, raunchy sex, be present as a person who offers that. of course sitting around debating male privilege isn’t gonna represent you that way, nor, frankly, should it! if you have some passion and some insight in those discussion, then you might still attract the occasional woman who finds that hot (while most will be there to — *gasp* — simply discuss the issues), and you can show your other qualities while getting to know her — but will you even notice her? that’s the second part of the relationship starter equation: whom do you notice? whom do you select to pay attention to? do you flirt at all? do you do it a lot?
there’s a world of further thought hidden inside of “be present as your own true self” and “treat people as individuals”, but it’s a damn good start.
that’s why i, middle-aged, fat, not conventionally attractive, transgendered, with the sex drive of an asexually reproducing plant, unambitious, sarcastic and not suffering fools gladly, have two wonderful long-term partners who treat me as i want to be treated. according to people who think in stereotypes i’d not have a chance in hell. but i’ve had great relationships for most of my life because i figured out that i must interact with individuals, not with stereotypes, and that i am much better off if i am present as myself from the get-go, passion, warts and all. did i have them at 20? no, at 20 i fucked up because i didn’t know what really mattered. but that was one honking big growth experience, i tell ya. go forth and grow.
Pete said that he had the capacity to be either at any time. Simply not true. If you are capable of being an ass with women, then you really are *not* a feminist man….because you just don’t get it.
I don’t think Pete is a feminist at all. He is a player looking for the quickest way to score.
Pingback: PunkAssBlog.com
You know, when women approach an all male group and challenge them on their misogyny, we’re called man-haters, ball busters, dykes, and harpies. Posted by: Q Grrl June 06, 2006 at 08:45 AM
This statement is untrue.
First of all, an all male group is not a women-hating group. Men’s rights activists are not into misogyny.
I am married since 30 years, always with the same wife, 2 daughters and 1 foster girl, sharing 25 years the same rooms with my mother-in-law until her death. I am not a women-hater.
Second, you should understand, that there are men, quite a huge number, who were or are badly treated by women.
Generally, reasonable postings made by a woman in an all male group are highly welcome – they are helpful for men to overcome a difficult time after a disappointment, they are important to show, that not all women agree to any wrongdoing against men, solely out of the fact, that the wrongdoing was done by a woman.
Either that or you’re deliberately misinterpreting the bulk of feminist work so that you can claim it is too difficult and puts you in a bleak and bitter hell.
Well, duh. It’s much easier to simply pretend it’s Way Too Hard than to actually, like, do something different. Especially if there’s the slightest suggestion that treating the objects of one’s sexual interest as people might make it less easy to fuck them.
Hugo, you seriously dropped the ball here. What this boy (I don’t even think he really qualifies as a young man yet) needs to be told is very simple:
As long as you regard being a “feminist man” more as a tool to get yourself laid than as something you believe and consistently support simply because you think it’s right, two things are going to be true: first, you will not get laid, and second, this is because you’re assigning yourself to the wrong side of the equation. Pete is not having trouble because he’s a nice guy and women only want jerks — Pete is one of the jerks that women don’t want!
At his age, I barely knew what feminism was — but I knew enough to look for guys who would treat me right for reasons BEYOND wanting to get into my pants. I don’t think today’s young women are that much stupider than I was.
Pingback: The American Princess
The phrase “treating women as people” is so dishonest, but it keeps coming up over and over again.
How exactly does society not treat women like people? By rape? Rape is a crime committed by a small criminal minority. The vast majority of men would beat the crap out of a rapist if they knew one. There was a story just recently about how a woman falsely accused a man of rape, and so some guys burned him in a perverted attempt at justice. As you might have guessed, only the vigilante guys were charged with a crime, not the woman.
Objectification? Guess what, everyone is objectified! If I go to a job interview, do you think the company cares what my hopes and dreams and desires and pains are? NO! It just wants someone who will work and get a job done. If I ask a woman out on a date, do you think she just ignores how much I earn, how good I look, and how good I can ‘smooth talk’? I’ve never once met a woman who wanted to hear about my problems or offer me help. Women who have never taken a nanosecond to learn a thing about me or what I’ve been through, or what my beliefs are have no problem telling me I have things better than them, and what my motivations are. That’s horrible objectification that leads to hatred; Where’s the outcry against that?
Male privledge? You mean the privledge to have my life considered less valuable than a woman’s? Women have a longer life expectancy, yet people only ever make a cause of women’s health research. Hundreds of men die in iraq, but only the women get specific mention… the men are just numbers. When people are to be rescued it’s always women and children first. And when talking about history, women’s oppression always comes up, yet people never seem to point out that MEN were forced to kill and be killed in wars or face prison solely because they happened to be young men during wartime. 5 times as many men are murdered than women, yet only women are supposably afraid to walk the streets at night. Almost all prisoners are male, yet I only ever hear outcries to reduce the number of incarcerated women. And if anyone’s ever actually taken the time to tour a men’s and women’s prison… the women’s are ridiculously more comfortable and high quality (and yes, prisoners are people too and don’t deserve infinite suffering and vindication).
Hell, even the assumption then men are privledged is oppressive to men. It just gives society an excuse to label men as losers when they don’t benefit from the mythical male privledge. It gives society an excuse to never give men ANY attention, and never ask their opinion, and always shove women’s opinions in their faces. Just look in the media… “what women want” is everywhere. “What men want” is rare.
If anyone is not treated “as a person”, it’s young low status males. They are the first to be blamed and sacrificed, but the last to receive any sort of sympathy or consideration, especially from so called feminists.
This is not that tricky. Don’t rape women or beat them up, respect the women you date as human beings, and don’t use your own feminist sympathies to patronizingly “empower” them.
Agreed. I do all those things. I campaign for equality across the board. I am not a pro-feminist, but in the absolute classic, original definition of feminism (equality of the sexes), you could say I was a feminist. You could also describe me as a “men’s right activist” too. I don’t buy into victimhood status. I buy into personal responsibility.
Question: if I do all those things, but am not what I would consider to be a “modern feminist”, am I somehow an enemy of a women’s study class?
QGrrl, you sound like a fundamentalist – nobody owes you a thing. I’ve seen guys who talk like you on MRA boards. Somewhere in the middle of these extremes, the truth lies.
“I don’t buy into victimhood status. I buy into personal responsibility.”
I haven’t read many of your posts, Perplexed, but I completely agree with this statement. It applies to both men and women.
I haven’t read many of your posts, Perplexed, but I completely agree with this statement. It applies to both men and women.
Absolutely. It’s something that feminists rarely talk about – personal responsibility. They like to talk about men’s responsibilities, but rarely their own. They too should treat men as equals – true equals – and full human beings. We should all be treated equally, is the bottom line.
I am not a Grandmaster of the Patriarchy, I have never attended a meeting. I don’t even know my local chapter of Patriarchs and where they hold their meetings. Indeed, I think I’ve been excommunicated by them. Feminists use the ‘patriarchy’ as a free pass to escape their own personal responsibility when talking about men.
“At his age, I barely knew what feminism was — but I knew enough to look for guys who would treat me right for reasons BEYOND wanting to get into my pants.”
Celine, I’ve said this here before a number of times, but I can assure you that a number of us don’t even WISH to get into your pants. That’s not an insult; it just means that a lot of us don’t fit the stereotype of men and boys having sex as their priority. I believe in treating people right and being treated right in return (and, again, that’s not a euphemism for sex).
“Hundreds of men die in iraq, but only the women get specific mention… the men are just numbers. When people are to be rescued it’s always women and children first.”
It does irk me when the news will talk about a disaster/bomb blast and say that “seventeen people have been confirmed dead, INCLUDING SOME WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Why on earth do they say that? Clearly, they think throwing that in makes it worse, and the obvious mathematical corollary is that if it were only seventeen men losing their lives it wouldn’t be quite as tragic.
Probably the idea is that women and children couldn’t possibly be soldiers, which is a lesson you’d think they would be over now.
perplexed, I’ve never understood this insistence that personal responsibility precludes blaming wrongdoers, and that pointing out oppression is ‘victimhood’ and prevents one from also taking responsibility for one’s own decisions. That strikes me as less about personal responsibility and more about some kind of macho pretense: I can’t be oppressed, baby, I’m responsible.
Right — one of the whole points of feminism is to giving women the opportunity to exercise personal responsibility. Examples: reproductive choice, equality opportunity in the workplace and the military, and being able to make decisions about walking around alone at night or having sex.
Probably the idea is that women and children couldn’t possibly be soldiers, which is a lesson you’d think they would be over now.
mythago, bmmg39 mentioned disaster/bomb blast, not specifically war. I’ve seen this reporting style too – when there’s a terrorist attack on civilians, or a natural disaster affecting civilians, it’s always “X people died, including X women and children”. Chalk that one up as yet another blind spot of the patriarchy – we must get that seen to.
perplexed, I’ve never understood this insistence that personal responsibility precludes blaming wrongdoers, and that pointing out oppression is ‘victimhood’ and prevents one from also taking responsibility for one’s own decisions.
By “blaming wrongdoers”, please don’t identify them arbitrarily by their genitals, which is the guilt by association / legacy guilt feminists heap onto men, because feminists frame men as being ‘oppressors’. I am not an oppressor of women/wrongdoer just because I am a man, and I find it a very cheap shot to be called one. I am not an oppressor of anyone. No more or less than you are. In fact, I find it irresponsible to blame anyone by association of gender, class, race or any other arbitrary attribute. Not only that, but by heaping blame onto a person simply due to his or her attributes (gender/class/race), you’re actually relieving them of their own responsibility. How can they be personally responsible when it’s their gender/race/whatever that’s to blame?
Right — one of the whole points of feminism is to giving women the opportunity to exercise personal responsibility. Examples: reproductive choice, equality opportunity in the workplace and the military, and being able to make decisions about walking around alone at night or having sex.
These aren’t the greatest of examples – walking around at night safely, is more a right than a responsibility. A right that belongs to everybody. Equal opportunities is also a right afforded to everybody (slightly tautological to point that out since equal opportunities by defacto should apply to all). Reproductive choice is exactly that : a choice. It’s an extra choice technoology has given women that they didn’t have before. Not only that, but it’s both the man and the woman’s responsibility to exercise birth control – even more so for the guy, because he has to make sure his girlfriend really is on the pill or not if that is their sole method of birth control (i.e. better to use a condom and be fully responsible).
“mythago, bmmg39 mentioned disaster/bomb blast, not specifically war.”
Well, her correct point was that the “including women and children” comment is also somewhat condescending to women and children. It wasn’t a “yeah, but,” more like a “that’s because.” I just wish people would see all “seventeen” fatalities of a bomb blast/flood/earthquake/massacre as equal human beings and not give extra focus to some over others.
If Pete has a choice then reading the above would suggest the path of least resistence is to follow the jerk and consult Ross Jeffries. Why not? There would seem to be no incentive to do otherwise would there?
Who’s Ross Jefferies?
[url]http://hometown.aol.com/galleries5070mal/gay-wrestling-fetish-sites.htm[/url]