This summer, at least on the PCC campus, I’m seeing a tremendous revival of the vulgar t-shirt. Many of my students have the most extraordinarily hostile –and occasionally funny — messages across their chests.
What bothers me most, however, are the ones that play on traditional female rivalries and anxieties. "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" read one I saw in the hall yesterday; "Tell Your Boyfriend to Stop Calling Me" read one from last week (on a different young woman, mind.) T-shirts like these — and there are others — trouble me more than the ones that read "All American Bitch" or "So Many Men, So Little Time". Displays of sexual bravado like these may be somewhat embarrassing and juvenile, but they aren’t designed to do damage to other women.
If there is one consistent lament I hear from the women in my feminist studies classes, it’s about the presence of intense competition in their lives. Not academic competition, but sexualized competition. As has often been noted here on this blog and elsewhere, this competitiveness on an "attractiveness market" is more intense in a community college with primarily lower middle class and working class students. To generalize enormously, the less privileged the background, the more intense the sense of competition among young women. Far too many young ones grow up with a sense that their sexual desirability is a more marketable commodity than their intellectual accomplishments; this is all the more likely to be true in families where there isn’t a history of women going to college. (If you don’t believe me, visit any American community college on a hot day — and then visit an elite university in the same weather. You’ll see more mini-skirts and heels in five minutes at Pasadena City College than you will in five hours at Berkeley or Stanford. That’s anecdotal, sure, but don’t take my word for it — try it yourself.) The bottom line: class and sexual competitiveness among women are, to say the least, not unrelated!
I realize it’s problematic for a fortyish man from a relatively privileged background to "tut-tut" with annoyance at the realities of the "attractiveness market" on which so many (but by no means all) of my young female students compete. But as I’ve said over and over again, at least part of living a feminist life is learning not to see other women as rivals. You can’t be committed to women’s liberation and see other attractive women as one’s enemies. One of the sad fruits of a sexist culture is the sense of isolation that many women have from one another. Internalized misogyny and competitiveness do not rest easy with a belief that women ought to be seen as complete human beings.
It’s unlikely, of course, that any young woman is going to be directly threatened by the "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" shirt. But it’s also equally unlikely that the shirt is intended to be interpreted ironically, as a wry commentary on the state of women’s competitiveness and anxiety. The shirt makes a claim about the wearer and her desirability — and it suggests that attractiveness is a zero-sum game for women. The sexier girl gets attention from other girls’ boyfriends. Fear about playing that game — and losing at it — is a major factor in the lives of many of the young women with whom I work.
I’ve had four entries up in recent weeks on modesty, women’s dress, and male self-control. Having insisted six ways to Sunday that lust is always the problem of the luster, I stopped short of saying that we ought not ever consider others when we dress ourselves. And yes, if what another woman wears makes you feel jealous and insecure, that’s as much your problem as it is for a man who is aroused by the same display. But I draw a distinction between the accidental and the intentional. A woman who is perceived as beautiful will be envied — and perhaps even disliked — by a few of her female peers regardless of what she wears. That’s not her fault. But if she wears a "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" shirt , she’s being quite deliberate about her desire to elevate her own status in a mildly shocking but deeply competitive manner. For that she is responsible, as in a small but significant way, she’s choosing to be actively hostile towards other women.
This is a great follow-up to the modesty series, Hugo, because it gets at why I feel so bothered, as a woman, by the very sexualized clothing that has become the norm for young women. I’m not comfortable dressing very provocatively because it doesn’t reflect who I am – but still feel a certain amount of pressure (even at age 34!) in that direction in order to prove I’m keeping up with other women in terms of youth and attractiveness. I would feel a little better if gentility and poise were valued more than mere flesh-baring.
But as CHRISTIANS we are instructed to dress “modestly.”
We can’t expect that from folks who don’t know, claim, or love Jesus Christ.
But we believers can definitely show modesty in all that we do, particularly in how we dress.
“I realize it’s problematic for a fortyish man from a relatively privileged background to “tut-tut” with annoyance at the realities of the “attractiveness market” on which so many (but by no means all) of my young female students compete. But as I’ve said over and over again, at least part of living a feminist life is learning not to see other women as rivals. You can’t be committed to women’s liberation and see other attractive women as one’s enemies.”
Oh, Hugo. Don’t you realize they’ll grow out of it? Don’t you realize they just want to be players, explore their sexuality, and then return to feminism when and if it suits them as middle-aged women?
What was your advice to “Pete” two months ago:
“I laughed gently, and reminded Pete of Augustine’s famous plea: “Give me continence, Lord, but not yet!” Pete got it, and chuckled too.”
You seem to be getting a little obsessed with the social conduct of women, what they wear, etc., embuing it with a certain sense of alarm and call to action. Yet when you have a young man in front of you who explicitly states that he wishes to treat women as less-than, as objects for his sexual gratification, you gently chuckle and tell him it will be o-kay.
It appears your grasp of what feminism is and what its politics are is slipping a tad bit.
If you don’t believe me, visit any American community college on a hot day — and then visit an elite university in the same weather. You’ll see more mini-skirts and heels in five minutes at Pasadena City College than you will in five hours at Berkeley or Stanford. That’s anecdotal, sure, but don’t take my word for it — try it yourself.
I remember when I once wrote myself pretty much almost those exact same words, in a discussion about the way that the average college-aged women look like. For that, I later read a feminist write that I was “a creep who likes to check out his students”. And I didn’t even propose that my readers should also go on to enjoy their male privilege of freely ogling hot young women.
Somehow, I just don’t expect that Hugo will get the same reaction from his feminist readers for writing such an open admission that he likes to check out the hot young coeds, and even encouraging other men to do the same. I guess that the rules just are different when you are a sensitive and morally superior socialist, like Hugo here.
Um, Ilkka — “checking out” is not what I’m referring to. There’s a monumental distinction between social observation and gazing with lust; plenty of women can observe the same things I’m referring to without a sexualized response. If you imply prurient interest on my part, go ahead — I can’t stop you. Most MRAs think I’m either a sexual predator in sheep’s clothing, secretly gay, or filled with toxic levels of self-loathing. Nothing I say can disprove any of these things, and I won’t try — those who know me, know my heart and trust my thoughts.
Q Grrl, I write more about the young because, um, I teach in a college filled with young people and I do youth ministry. Forgive me for being focused professionally on the concerns of the 15-22 year-old set.
If a woman with one of these shirts came to me for advice, as “Pete” did, I would treat her with the same gentle encouragement as I did him. Challenge, yes; confront, no.
And FWIW, focusing on the potential hostility of a T-shirt and how that manifests as competition for women, while ignoring rampant institutionalized sexism at the hands of men, the use of rape as a normative sexualization of females (again at the hands of men), domestic violence at the hands of men, the criminalization of women’s bodies (i.e., public breastfeeding), the criminalization of motherhood, the government’s official standpoint on women’s bodies as “pre-pregnant”, etc. etc. etc., is not feminist critique.
You’re finding easy targets that suit your comfort levels, and which barely affect you, a man. You get to stand in judgement, proclaim that something is feminist or not, and you’re barely affected by it. It’s mental gymnastics, really.
I mean, how many other men have waxed poetic about the inherent immorality of cat fights before? How are you any different?
Q Grrl, I wrote an entire series of posts in which I defended women’s right to wear what they please against men who feel threatened and aroused. You tend to show up here to rebuke me when I stray from the topics you think I should be focusing on — but when I do focus on topics that hold men accountable, you are less regular a presence. I’m not fishing for compliments, but it isn’t entirely fair to only comment when you disagree. Or do you find all of my posts equally objectionable?
No Hugo, you don’t get to wiggle out of this so easily. You’re already condemning the choices these women make, in print, on your blog, to a degree that you couldn’t bring to bear on “Pete” and his conundrum. You’re already moralizing the T-shirts; which is in direct conflict with your approach to Pete and his desire to use women for his sexual gratification. You painted Pete as a rosy-cheeked, lost-yet-earnest-seeker. Yet the T-shirt wearing girls here are painted as aggressive, competitive, willing to hurt other women, etc.
Nice one Hugo. Nice.
I tend to post when you claim something is “feminist” when it is clear that you are making “feminist” mean what you want it to mean. You make claims that I don’t see women making about feminism and I think you are wrong.
As for not chiming in on the male arousal issue, you’re wrong, I did. Several times.
For example, when Pete said:
“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?”
You ultimately condoned it and implied that he should do exactly this because: “Constant, anxious solicitousness is not, um, sexy.”
Yet above, these women, just by wearing T-shirts are:
“But if she wears a “Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks” shirt , she’s being quite deliberate about her desire to elevate her own status in a mildly shocking but deeply competitive manner. For that she is responsible, as in a small but significant way, she’s choosing to be actively hostile towards other women.”
She is DEEPLY. COMPETITIVE.
She is ACTIVELY. HOSTILE.
Your hypocrisy is that Pete admitted to wanting to embrace an actively hostile sexual view of women (women as objects for his desire and desirability; his ego playing out on the bodies of women). He similarly admitted to a deeply competitive view of women when he admitted his desire to be a player.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
You have a double standard which has become increasingly more obvious over the past several months. And your defense of it all seems to hinge on the fact that you counsel youth! God help those girls that are actively receiving the brunt of your double standards.
You’re already condemning the choices these women make, in print, on your blog, to a degree that you couldn’t bring to bear on “Pete” and his conundrum.
In fairness to Hugo, arguing for equal criticism because of the degree of comparability of the issues and approaches between this post and his 6 June post is exceptionally sensitive to context. Saying “this is like that” is often problematic becuase “this” is actually not at all like “that” when you do more than just a superficial comparison.
Q Grrl, I never, ever, ever, condoned being a player. I acknowledged that transitioning out of bad behavior isn’t easy, and that’s a different thing. I wanted Pete to change, and change incrementally if he couldn’t change instantly. As they say in AA, it’s all about “progress, not perfection.” That’s the same standard I would use with a woman.
Here’s the difference between these two posts: with Pete (really Carlos, since he posted here), I was talking about an interaction I had with a specific student. With the t-shirt wearers, I’m describing an observation I have made without benefit of a similar discussion. That, not a double standard, accounts for the differenc in tone.
God help those girls that are actively receiving the brunt of your double standards.
FWIW, I pray for God’s help in the lives of all young people with whom I come in contact!
Q Grrl,
It seems to me that Hugo is giving the SAME advice in both cases: if women dislike you doing X, don’t do X.
In Pete’s case, his question was–if I act in what I think is a feminist manner, women don’t like it–why should I keep acting that way?
In this case, the issue is–if women make dressing a competition, many women don’t like it.
In both cases, Hugo’s advice is–try to do what’s right, but do what women like and avoid what they don’t.
I too am guilty of seeing girls wear those kinds of shirts and thinking, “How TACKY!” As a feminist, I am called to love all girls regardless of what they wear, and it still an area of my life that I need to work on. But it is important to note that guys also wear extremely vulgar shirts (similar to the ones you described) all the time. In fact, I think I see them more often on guys than on girls. Once, I went to a store that sold swords but was kind of distracted by the clerk’s shirt. It said, “Ten things guys know about girls” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.GIRLS HAVE BOOBS! I would’ve told the manager, but he WAS the manager. Another frequent shirt I see guys wear is “No Ma’am.” And also, “How to score chicks.” Others reference to getting blow jobs and the like. All you need to do is walk into Hot Topic or visit http://www.tshirthell.com and find tons of these kinds of shirts. I am annoyed and offended by the popularity and message of these kinds of shirts, regardless of the gender of the wearer. But as a Christian and feminist, I strive to NOT judge the person who wears them but rather the shirt itself.
I think this might be the 2nd time in succession, but I agree with Q Grrll in terms of the double standard.
Surely women who see another woman wearing sexy clothing as ‘competitive’ need to deal with their reactions to such clothing, just as you say men should?
Perpelexed, you’re missing the distinction between an intentional and unambiguous verbal statement (the words on the shirt) and the far more ambigious world of clothing. We can “read” the intent of a t-shirt with that slogan on it in a way we can’t read the intent of a miniskirt.
And Mermade, you’re right that men wear some appalling messages. But they aren’t actively hostile towards other men. They are sexist, yes, but the target is still women. The “Tell your boyfriend I said thanks” shirt is problematic because it is designed to foster female hyper-competitiveness. That’s the specific problem I’m addressing here.
Hugo said: “What bothers me most, however, are the ones that play on traditional female rivalries and anxieties. “Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks” read one I saw in the hall yesterday; “Tell Your Boyfriend to Stop Calling Me” read one from last week (on a different young woman, mind.) T-shirts like these — and there are others — trouble me more than the ones that read “All American Bitch” or “So Many Men, So Little Time”. Displays of sexual bravado like these may be somewhat embarrassing and juvenile, but they aren’t designed to do damage to other women.”
How about the ones designed to specifically and deliberately do damage to boys and men, e.g., “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” (worn by lots of young and adolescent girls and the subject of a Glenn Sacks’ campaign about a year ago), “So many men, so little brains” (worn by an elementary teacher to school where she taught both girls and boys), “Girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider” (again, worn by lots of adolescent girls), etc., etc., ad nauseum. How does this fit into your sense of outrage? Or are you only bothered by relatively trivial insults between women as exemplified by the examples you cite?
I see nothing particularly sexist about the ‘negative message on t-shirts’ situation, just blatant sexism in the feminist response to it. Equality from feminists? Yeah, right.
Hugo continues: “If there is one consistent lament I hear from the women in my feminist studies classes, it’s about the presence of intense competition in their lives. Not academic competition, but sexualized competition.”
So why is competition between women bad but women competing against men good (and at the same time, men competing against women bad)?
Then we have this litany of nonsense from Q Grrl:
“And FWIW, focusing on the potential hostility of a T-shirt and how that manifests as competition for women, while ignoring rampant institutionalized sexism at the hands of men,…”
Bull. The predominant, overwhelming institutionalized sexism in our (western) society is against men, not women.
“…the use of rape as a normative sexualization of females (again at the hands of men),…”
Again, bull. Rape is very rare and is in no way “normative” in our society. Get a grip.
“…domestic violence at the hands of men,…”,
Women commit as much interspousal violence as men, slightly more interpartner violence and overwhelmingly more child abuse than men. Thus, in the scope of all “domestic violence,” women are the overwhelming majority of perps.
“…the criminalization of women’s bodies (i.e., public breastfeeding),…”
Men peeing discretely in the bushes is prosecuted more often and punishment is more severe, thus, men’s bodies are more often and more severely criminalized than women’s, who mostly get a pass on their indiscretions.
“…the criminalization of motherhood,…”
That comment is simply insane.
“…the government’s official standpoint on women’s bodies as “pre-pregnant”,…”
Huh? Since when?
“You’re finding easy targets that suit your comfort levels, and which barely affect you, a man. You get to stand in judgement, proclaim that something is feminist or not, and you’re barely affected by it. It’s mental gymnastics, really.”
Pot, kettle. Same old story from the rad-fem peanut gallery.
Hugo, your post makes some good points, but IMO the negative messages seen on t-shrts are far more often against boys and men, and are more severe in scope. IMO this is because it’s politically correct to harsh on men, while at the same time women in our society are treated with nothing short of reverence by the overwhelming members of our (western) culture. Thus, I believe you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.
The “boys are stupid” shirts will get no defense from me, Mr. Bad — and if an elementary school teacher really did wear a “So many men, so few brains” shirt to teach, then of course that’s wildly inappropriate. No argument there.
You and Q Grrl seem to agree I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, so you’ve got some solidarity there. Lots of folks have suggestions about what I “should” be posting on instead of what I do!
Point taken, Hugo.
I also have an anecdotal observation, of all the girls I see wearing those kinds of shirts around campus, I would say eight out of ten of them are from asian extraction. Hugo, do you think this a legitimate observation and if so why? Would it have anything to do with the expectations placed on them by their cultural environment?
Mr Bad- admit it, you made those T-shirt slogans up! I’ve never seen any of them, but I have seen the ‘tell your boyfriend’ etc ones. I call bullshit.
One of the things I’ve noticed since moving to the US, and in the US media, e.g. glossy women’s mags, is the greater level of competition fostered among women for the attention of men. It’s classic ‘divide and rule’ and let’s not forget that at the heart of it is the fact that men still hold the power, so women ARE (as Hugo said) more likely to feel that their sexuality will bring them success than their brains and skills. That’s the message all around.
In glossies for example, the message is so often about how to please your man, how to get him to commit, how to wow him in bed (in my experience, this doesn’t require advanced techniques in any case) etc. In the UK, where I’m from, the equivalent magazines are much more laid back, and the sexuality sections are as much about making sure YOUR needs are met as his needs.
But in the end, I think it’s indicative of the whole American obsession with competitiveness and success. Your success must be obtained at the expense of someone else’s. The Protestant Ethic has a lot to answer for.
Ug, Mr. Bad…it just takes SO LONG and so much thread space to point by point go through your false premises, intentionally misleading statements, outright false statements and quite frankly your hatred of feminists (if not women in general). So, I’m simply not going to do it.
On the topic at hand, I dislike all of these t-shirts: these in-fighting, hyper-rude, hyper-competitive, overly sexualized t-shirts. I like a lot of novelty tshirts, the “All I need to know I learned playing video games” shirts and the ironic “Real Men Wear Pink” and “I’m really easy to get along with, once you people learn to worship me” type tshirts. But the ones that are just lame innuendos (protect your nuts, with a picture of a squirrel) and men-bashing female-bashing tshirts are just derogatory.
But, I wouldn’t want to ban them or anything: I merely know that if you wear those types of shirts, I can comfortably ignore them. If you’re wearing a “How to get a blowjob” tshirt, I probably will laugh in your face if you tried to hit on me.
What is it about our culture that fosters this hyper-competitive atmosphere? Why do we need to “one-up” everyone all the time, including our friends and complete strangers?
I too noticed a radical difference in the appearance of females in a local community college compared with a leading research university here in town. To be quite honest, it was a bit of a culture shock! I remember staring at some women in utter disbelief that they would have the audacity and nerve to step foot out of their house in some of the outfits they wore.
At the risk of being politically correct, it can be quite entertaining to stroll through local community colleges. A while back one young woman – dressed unbelievably provocatively for school – casually strolled towards a group of men while snapping her fingers and singing loudly “I can have any man that I want to”; it took all my self-control to stop her and in mid-song and ask what was mentally wrong with her. Thanks Hugo for your perspective on what motivates some of these women.
Ugh, my sentence should have been “At the risk of being politically INCORRECT…”
drift
Mr Bad: The CDC recently came out with the following guidelines for health care providers:
“New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves — and to be treated by the health care system — as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon. ”
Nice use of tax dollars, eh?
/drift
Hugo, I come from the standpoint that a man staring at me is far more competitive and hostile than a young woman wearing a slogan across her chest is. Your choice of language suggests that you find these slogans to be equally or more damaging than men’s active and continual objectification of women.
And yes, I agree with perplexed again! Women can choose how to interpret other women’s clothing; they do all the time. Wearing clothes is a rather passive type of statement — unlike the actively aggressive actions of men who stare, hoot, holler, grab, or (yes Mr. Bad) rape women.
The issue is more akin to this: why trump up how damaging and hurtful young women are to each other when you have men like Mr. Bad actively dismissing the real and reported incidence of rape in the US? He’s posted this twice in the last few days? What gives?
Maybe if he wore a T-shrit saying “rape is all in your head, bitch!” you’d pay more attention?
Come to think of it Hugo, have you ever actively spoken out about the harm of pornography to young women, the hostility and competition that is inherent in porn? If not, why? Is male perpetuated hostility towards the female body that buried that you can’t find examples to criticize?
Q Grrl, here’s the post that became my first big "hit" on the ‘net
That, not a double standard, accounts for the differenc in tone.
Are you actually claiming that if a female student told you that she knows the offensive shirt is unfeminist but she enjoys the attention, that your response would be to “chuckle” and suggest that it’s a gradual process, and that when she’s all done with her youthful catfights, she’ll end up a feminist?
When somebody notices you’re not as progressive as you think you are, you tend to go through the standard routine of appearing hurt, saying the other person isn’t being fair, and splitting hairs to show why in this case you’re saying the same thing as you did before. At least this time you’re not making catty remarks in a different thread.
BTW, I wonder when your male students will start wearing those ‘boyfriend’ shirts.
“Your choice of language suggests that you find these slogans to be equally or more damaging than men’s active and continual objectification of women.”
This is not true for me. I am fortunate enough to have spent the majority of my life around rather kind and respectful men. Whereas the majority of women that I dealt with as a youth and young adult have been the competetive sort Hugo is critiquing. I felt more worthless and belittled around other women than I ever did around the men I knew. All these women were fighting and hating eachother over issues as insubstantial as what we were wearing and who we had the audacity to flirt with. These women did more damage to my opinion of the value and talents of women than any of my male friends.
harpy, for starters see here, and here. You can do the rest of your research yourself.
Antigone: Of course you’re not going to do it. You can’t.
Q Grrl: Ok, I stand corrected. That’s pretty weird, but to me it looks like they’re sincerely trying to do this for women’s benefit, malpractice litigation being what it is these days. However, the CDC is only a small part of our government and they are “asking” women to do this, thus, giving them the choice as to whether or not to consider themselves “pre-pregnant” (presumably so that women can and will avail themselves to the multitude of special women-only healthcare services provided by us taxpayers). Still, I think much more egregious wastes of public tax dollars can be found in blatantly sexist legislation like the VAWA, sexist practices like the multitude of women’s health commissions, etc., the vast inbalance in funding for female-specific health research and promotion vs. male-specific programs, etc. To me that demonstrates real sexism.
And sure Q, men do objectify women (as women objectify men) and on very rare occasions, men rape women (as women and men rape men). I’ve never condoned it or otherwise approved of rape (if you think I have, prove it). Yes, I do point out that rape is extremely rare – because it is – but so what? Are you trying to hold up the rare exception as the norm and thus demonstrative of typical male behavior? And if so, why? That’s like charaterizing women as embezzeling, lying, manipulative child murderers simply because some few women are indeed that way.
It’s classic ‘divide and rule’
yes, thank you harpy. i’m just chiming in to say regardless of this thread’s debate about hugo’s motives/hypocrises/inner demons/blah yada blah, i think he raises a valid point – these shirts are indicative of an internalized sexism among women that damages our potential to fully connect with and relate to each other. patriarchy is the system, but both men and women perpetuate it, and women should try to police our own culpability here. we’re not to blame for the patriarchal system, but we have a responsibility to each other to try to change it.
This is not true for me. I am fortunate enough to have spent the majority of my life around rather kind and respectful men. Whereas the majority of women that I dealt with as a youth and young adult have been the competetive sort Hugo is critiquing.
This is where different people’s experiences seem to vary a whole lot. It never even occurred to me that people could experience women as routinely competitive in this way, until I heard from other women, in college, that they’d had these experiences. Either I moved in the junior high school, high school, and college sets which were least prone to this, or else I was just oblivious. On the other hand, street and other harrassment by men, was commonplace in my life (even though most individual guys I met treated me OK once I got past junior high school).
I too noticed a radical difference in the appearance of females in a local community college compared with a leading research university here in town.
That might explain a lot about how I’ve missed seeing so much of this.
At Stanford, a couple of decades ago when I went there, the women dressed nearly the same as the men, but when everyone switched to pretty much the same style of shorts in hot weather, I’d hear the occasional complaint about the women’s clothing, but not the men’s.
The only sexual innuendo on a T-shirt that really stays in my memory from that time is the “We are not just friends” T-shirt for lesbians.
Perpelexed, you’re missing the distinction between an intentional and unambiguous verbal statement (the words on the shirt) and the far more ambigious world of clothing. We can “read” the intent of a t-shirt with that slogan on it in a way we can’t read the intent of a miniskirt.
You’re making the distinction – I’m not. In fact, I’d argue that being ‘politically’ provoked/angered by a t-shirt’s statement is far easier to control than being sexually provoked – one is intellectual, the other hormonal. We hear statements all the time we disagree with – on the radio, on billboards, in movies, in newspapers etc. We have a responsibility to control our reactions to these messages. I don’t know why you always give women a pass when describing such a situation, but are much stricter with men. I’d respect your views a lot more if you could show some balance.
Perplexed, I think the whole point of this post is that I am not “giving a pass” to anyone. We do have complete control over the slogans on our t-shirts in a way we don’t have control over whether or not some yahoo chooses to objectify us sexually.
Hugo: I think one of the reasons you’re drawing so much ire this time is that usually your approach is a call for men to change their behavior, and that women’s behavior is outside your scope; but here you’re focusing on women’s behavior and trying to speak with the same degree of authority as you do when you’re discussing men. And you (and I, and other men) don’t have the perspective for that kind of authority when it comes to talking about competition among women.
Compare it to something like this post, also written by a male pro-feminist about T-shirts, but from a perspective of men’s actions, choices, and responsibility.
kate.d. said: “patriarchy is the system, but both men and women perpetuate it, and women should try to police our own culpability here. we’re not to blame for the patriarchal system, but we have a responsibility to each other to try to change it.”
On feminist boards I’ve often encountered this reference to the nebulous, ill-defined “patriarchy” but have yet to have anyone effectively and succinctly explain what “patriarchy” actually is. Most of the time, as here, it’s used to refer to some vague force that presumably keeps men on top and women down, similar to how religious folks blame the world’s ill on “the Devil” and other similarly vague forces. My question is this: If women perpetuate “patriarchy,” then how are you not responsible for it? My experience is that that personal responsibility is anathema to feminists, but I hope you could give me a thoughtful answer here.
jfpbookworm said: “Hugo: I think one of the reasons you’re drawing so much ire this time is that usually your approach is a call for men to change their behavior, and that women’s behavior is outside your scope; but here you’re focusing on women’s behavior and trying to speak with the same degree of authority as you do when you’re discussing men. And you (and I, and other men) don’t have the perspective for that kind of authority when it comes to talking about competition among women.”
Hmm, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the above. jfp, are you saying that simply because Hugo’s a man, he lacks the “authority” to be talking about competition among women? If so, then would you also agree that women lack “authority” when talking about competition among men? Or masculinity? Or battlefield logistics and strategy? Or any number of other predominantly male-specific issues? I might agree with you that in some cases men and women lack the requisite empathy and experience to be considered experts in certain fields, but I suspect that I would be challenged here only in the case of suggesting such a thing for women commenting re. male-specific issues.
We do have complete control over the slogans on our t-shirts in a way we don’t have control over whether or not some yahoo chooses to objectify us sexually.
That is not representative of your post. Here, look:-
If there is one consistent lament I hear from the women in my feminist studies classes, it’s about the presence of intense competition in their lives. Not academic competition, but sexualized competition.
Either that’s a non sequitur, or you’re alluding to the idea that these slogans just exarcebate the competitive spirit in women. Surely they need to control their reactions to such clothing, in the same way you constantly say men do?
Your sympathy switches from the wearer to the viewer suddenly.
Why do you not talk about women needing to control their reactions to such slogans? I am labouring this point only because the double standard is so obvious.
I guess I am having a problem with the idea that everything we wear is very very deadly serious and combined with the idea that feminism is about supporting women’s right to be who they want to be….unless they do (insert limits here).
To question the obvious – do you really believe that the T-shirt is a message to anyone in particular – that it is being worn to actually threaten or hurt an individual person. Or is it a sense of humour where the woman is saying, “I do what I like, sexually or otherwise, and no, I don’t have guilt.” – See, I think it is the last part that drives people a bit nuts – a woman intimating that she’s a person who could act sexually and feel no guilt. Alert! Alert! Sign of the end times!
t-shirts I own and wear: “You’ve been a naughty girl, go to my room” – explaination a: I am advertising my exploitation and domination of women and my daily destruction of feminism by my attitudes.
Explaination b: I am advertising I am lesbian and have a sense of humour.
T-shirt #2: “You call me freak like it is a bad thing” Explaination a: mocking of circus performers and hurting others who have been marginalized by pointing out society sees them as different.
Explaination b: I have no interest into living up to society standards of “normal”, deal with it.
At the end of the day I don’t see a justification to go from “I was offended at that shirt” to “she shouldn’t be wearing that shirt.” Nor does a girl singing, “I can have any man I want” a bigger issue than a guy humming, “Runaround Sue” – so what?
“To generalize enormously, the less privileged the background, the more intense the sense of competition among young women.”
YES, this is a huge generalization. Its an interesting conclusion. I’m not so sure its true though.
Certainly life is harder for people in lower classes, women especially.
I come from a reasonably wealthy white family. My parents have enough money to send all thier kids to fancy colleges. They also have a beach house, a home theatre, tons of original art, and two sports cars. They are not fabulously wealthy, but many of thier friends are.
Though I now life a much different lifestyle, I am unfortunately familiar with wealthy culture. In the world of money appearances are parramount. I have been told from a very early age by my parents that I needed to start watching my weight so boys will like me. My step mother is very competitive with other women. She competes to have the most beautiful trendy house. She also competes to have the most beautiful clothing. Both my father and step mother have made it clear that I embarass them if I don’t dress up and wear make-up in front of thier friends.
Whats even more interesting is the conversations my sisters have with thier friends. Looks are criticized all the time. Each of them has at least a few friends that are anorexic/bulemic. All the girls are under strong pressure from thier parents to maintain a (too low) weight. The parents are teaching them to be seriously competitive with other women at a young age.
I refuse to date wealthy men because (generally) they require me to be thier trophy. Women are very important ornaments in the wealthy world. I think the difference you’re noticing in dress between the classes is not due to less competition. They would say that such clothing is simply in poor taste.
White, wealthy men have a bigger entitlement complex than any other group. I think that thier particular brand of entitlement makes women, especially aging ones, very disposable and fules competition amongst women. Wealthy women also have acsess to competitive tactics that other women to not. ex: They compete with personal trainers as well as getting tons of plastic surgery.
I can’t believe I’m making this recomendation.. Try to watch “My Super Sweet 16″ to get an idea of the different competitiveness I’m talking about.
Um, Ilkka — “checking out” is not what I’m referring to. There’s a monumental distinction between social observation and gazing with lust;
Indeed, but not everybody on your team seems to understand that. Or at least they understand it very selectively.
I attended one of the colleges known as the ivy league of the Midwest; students came from (primarily) upper-middle class and professional backgrounds. Attire was uniformly casual and functional. During warmer weather, it wasn’t unusual for students to arrive at class barefoot and dirty. Few if any students dressed up on a regular basis. Almost immediately upon graduation, almost all of them transitioned to professional jobs or graduate school with a minimum of fuss.
After graduating, I took a few classes at a local community college. I was stunned at the difference. Students dressed up for class – far more than I had experienced before. Many of my peers at the CC saw school as a privilege and dressed for that privilege. I had peers at this community school who would never dream of showing up for class in anything other than a starched, ironed shirt and dress pants. Some students who worked all day would go home, shower, change into clean clothes before rushing to class. Even students who wore jeans and t-shirts to class wore their cleanest and best to class, even group study sessions.
I think the difference was between people who saw education as a right and those who saw it a privilege. Among the students at the cc, they dressed in their best (which for some was heels and mini skirt) to show that they deserved the privilege but also to combat a social dis-ease; they were aware that they were moving across a social dividing line and were attempting to prove they belonged. Students who were first in their family to attend college were straddling a social dividing line – breaking from a set of values that weren’t comfortable with the extreme casualness around sexuality, but not yet fully embracing a set of values in which sexuality was (far too often) separated from emotion.
Students at my undergraduate college perceived education as their right – the hedonism, brazen sexuality, deliberate crossing of behavioral barriers that were not crossed in their upper-middle class families were seen as part and parcel of the college experience – the icing on the cake. They didn’t have to prove they belonged at college to anyone, least of all themselves. At the community college, many students were trying to prove to themselves that they deserved to be there. What to my eye was sexualized behavior, was really a more carefully studied mimicking of what was perceived as appropriate collegiate behavior. Clothing choices were made that would help students feel brash, or strong, or confident in ways that students from the upper middle class didn’t feel they needed.
But as I’ve said over and over again, at least part of living a feminist life is learning not to see other women as rivals.
In a world of finite resources and infinite wants, to some extent everybody is necessarily a “rival” of everyone else.
To generalize enormously, the less privileged the background, the more intense the sense of competition among young women.
You know, I honestly like that observation. It sums up so many ugly realities of class and distribution of good men at once so well, in just a few words.
Glendenb, that’s a very astute insight — and Rachel, yours is as well.
Thanks.
Hugo — on the topic at hand, I find it just as irritating that such shirts (and marketing campaigns, tv shows, etc) spark unnecessary competition between women.
Apologies for the thread drift on this, but it deserves an answer:
Mr. Bad: Still, I think much more egregious wastes of public tax dollars can be found in blatantly sexist legislation like the VAWA, sexist practices like the multitude of women’s health commissions, etc., the vast inbalance in funding for female-specific health research and promotion vs. male-specific programs, etc. To me that demonstrates real sexism.
For hundreds of years, medical research has focused almost exclusively on male subjects. Women-focused medical programs exist for a reason — to make up for the lack of research for so long. This isn’t solely about breast cancer and gynecological issues (although centers for those are out there, just as urology clinics are geared toward men). When a woman has a heart problem, the signs are often very different than those a man experiences — and those that medical professionals learned to seek in diagnosis. As a result, many have sufferred heart attacks that could have been prevented if only medical professionals had understood the different ways a woman experiences a heart attack in comparison to a man.
Here’s a recent article on stress that’s a perfect example of what I’m trying to explain. The medical field has held some assumptions about human behavior while under stress, and only recently did it occur to someone that every single major study about stress had researched the male reaction. Every one. THIS is why there is funding for women’s health issues.
(/drift)
If you want to talk about this (not debate, not rant, not make assumptions), you’re welcome to visit my place to do so. Otherwise, let’s continue talking about Hugo’s subject, not your agenda, please.
Allison says:
For hundreds of years, medical research has focused almost exclusively on male subjects. Women-focused medical programs exist for a reason — to make up for the lack of research for so long. This isn’t solely about breast cancer and gynecological issues (although centers for those are out there, just as urology clinics are geared toward men). When a woman has a heart problem, the signs are often very different than those a man experiences — and those that medical professionals learned to seek in diagnosis. As a result, many have sufferred heart attacks that could have been prevented if only medical professionals had understood the different ways a woman experiences a heart attack in comparison to a man.
Oh yeah, but you forget that more men suffer from heart attacks than women. So while you are wailing about all those women whose heart attacks could have been prevented, spare a thought for all those many more males.
Similarly, if you check the stats, you will find that prostate cancer is a bigger killer of men than breast cancer is of women.
“I weep for you, I deeply sympathize …”
Oh, and get real. Hundreds of years? Real medical research has only been going on for something like 150 years, and during that time, one of the biggest killers of women, problems during childbirth, was the main target.
Personally, I care about the biggest killers of people, whether they be male or female. Why, some of the nicest people I know are female …
Good points, glendenb. I can’t help but notice, myself, how many of those upper-middle-class students slid right back into the politics and morality of their families once they graduated (either undergrad, or from further professional schooling); college was the playground, and they were getting a degree, not an education.
Mr. Bad: I’m thinking of authority as a continuum rather than a binary here. Hugo’s going to have less (not no) authority saying “women shouldn’t do this because it encourages competitiveness in other women” because he’s not a woman. And yes, women are going to have less (again, not no) authority on the topic of men’s interactions with other men.
Loki, you missed (or perhaps ignored) my point.
Mr Bad;
Is that the best you can do? You have provided no reliable sources for your assertions, and since you made them, unless you can back them up I call bullshit. The first linky was a site selling T-shirts with ‘Boys are Stupid’ on them, and some other items with slogans such as ‘Boys have cooties’. Do you seriously think that these T shirts for misses and junior misses will offend 6th and 7th grade boys? They aren’t sized for teachers, ffs. As for your second linky, it’s clearly one of those shit-stirring sites that, again, doesn’t source the assertions you repeat. Bullshit repeated is still bullshit.
Must Try Harder.
Hugo….I can’t connect with you on your listed address. Would you please send me the e mail address of “Josh” on your boxing site ? I had a good discourse going with him and you closed the site. I’d like to continue the discussion on Jackie Graves with him…I’d really appreciate it. Hope you see this !…………..Dick
I find it just as irritating that such shirts (and marketing campaigns, tv shows, etc) spark unnecessary competition between women.
Feminist reaction: The reaction to these t-shirts from women is to be sympathised with. Encouraging competition is bad, Must Do Something About It.
Let me turn it around:-
I find it just as irritating that such clothing sparks unnecessary thoughts of lust in men.
Feminist reaction: So Deal With It, You’re A Man ™.
When the viewer of clothing is a woman, feminists sympathise. When the viewer of clothing is a man, he’s dealt with harshly.
I just don’t think you’re going to get anywhere near understanding these issues while you choose to have a double standard.
For hundreds of years, medical research has focused almost exclusively on male subjects. Women-focused medical programs exist for a reason — to make up for the lack of research for so long.
This is not true at all. Medical research has ALWAYS been about fighting illness and disease that effects everyone. After all, 99.999% of illnesses, diseases and cancers affect everyone – both men and women. It’s nonsense to suggest there’s some Patriarchy that resaerched illnesses that ONLY affected men (about 0.001% of illnesses) – all in the age of chivalry where women and children came first in terms of lives being saved.
Perplexed
Medical research _is_ focused on fighting disease, but most medical research has historically not been carried out on women. This is because the woman’s menstrual cycle can complicate the results. And also because (historically) more men than women volunteer for medical trials. In particular young, white, middle class men. It was always assumed that data from these men would generalise to the rest of the population.
It’s only recently that the medical research establishment has realised that women’s symptoms of disease and reaction to drugs can differ substantially to that of men’s. Heart disease is an excellent example. It has recently been discovered that women with heart problems are being severely under-diagnosed and under-treated simply because their symptoms of a heart attack are different to what is expected i.e. a man’s heart attack symptoms.
Check out this link, http://www.ahrq.gov/research/womheart.htm, which is from the Agency for Healthcare Research, a body of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Note that this difference in symptoms of disease and reaction to drugs can also extend to different ages (children and adolescents in particular) and different races. This is a fertile area for new research. In fact the FDA has recently approved a new heart drug for use only on black patients as trials have shown that it works for them and not for white patients (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2005/505_BiDil.html).
Medical research _is_ focused on fighting disease, but most medical research has historically not been carried out on women. This is because the woman’s menstrual cycle can complicate the results.
I don’t think medical research is so simplistic – any evidence that medical researchers around the world refused to research the effects of new medicines on women because of their menstrual cycle? As far as I’m aware, medical researchers have found it necessary to do tests on both men and women of all ages to make sure there are no adverse effects to drugs.
Sorry for the thread drift Hugo, but I can’t let this slide:
Allison said: “For hundreds of years, medical research has focused almost exclusively on male subjects.”
and
EmmaG said: “Medical research _is_ focused on fighting disease, but most medical research has historically not been carried out on women. This is because the woman’s menstrual cycle can complicate the results. And also because (historically) more men than women volunteer for medical trials. In particular young, white, middle class men. It was always assumed that data from these men would generalise to the rest of the population.”
These two statements demonstrate the incredible ignorance and denial associated with the feminist rationalization for granting women special status and privilege in, among other things, medical research.
First, as Loki pointed out, medical research as we know it has only been around for about 150 years. Further, up until about 40 years ago practically all medical research was conducted on two populations, soldiers and prisoners. This is because much early medical research dealt with trauma and infection and was inherently unsafe. Since men – and only men – have been compelled to fight in wars and the majority incarcerated persons are now and in the past have been men, this explains the gender inbalance in past medical research. However, the assertion that most subjects volunteered is incorrect and deceptive at best: Since most men who fought in wars since WWI were conscripted/drafted, those men did not volunteer to get injured and subsequently studied, and a similar situation existed for prison inmates, who did not volunteer for medical research but rather were compelled to do so. The Tuskeegee syphilis experiment is an excellent example of this: Hundered of African American men (but no women) were unknowingly and deliberately infected with syphilis in order to study the effects of the disease. We readily see the racism and ignore the sexism. Early studies of anesthesia, surgical techniques, antibiotics, the effects of exposure to radiation, etc., were all conducted on soliders, who again, because women have always been excused from service to country, were exclusively men and who for the most part were compelled to participate in those studies and did not volunteer. It’s only since institutional review boards were put in place and thus medical research became relatively safe that women have been compelled to participate in experiments of untested and potentially risky medical procedures and therapies. And now that medical research is relatively safe and has strong oversight, men are being ignored and shortchanged.
Only a feminist would have the unmitigated gall to take examples of female privilege and turn it completely on its head and try to pass it off as an example of discrimination against women.
Finally, harpy, you can call bullshit on whatever you like. You obviously are not one who recognizes reality and facts when clearly presented to you, so debating with you is pointless.
Next person to mention medical research on this thread will be banned. Folks, admitting that you’re thread drifting and then doing it any way gets you no bonus points. You have each other’s emails; email them!
Get on topic now, and don’t try for a second the old “but I need to respond to the last insane thing that so-and-so said”. I tried that excuse when I tried to get in the “last hit” with my brother in the back seat of my mother’s Peugeot around 1975, and it didn’t work.
Dick, the email of other posters is clear if you place your cursor over their name. I closed the thread because it was just two of you having a discussion that was not directly related to the topic of the post.
Mr Bad- that was pathetic. Put up or shut up.
Harpy and Mr. Bad — one more comment to the other and you will be banned. No “but he hit me last” b.s. on my blog. Grow up and take it elsewhere.
Just one small point Hugo:
Early studies of anesthesia, surgical techniques, antibiotics, the effects of exposure to radiation, etc., were all conducted on soliders, who again, because women have always been excused from service to country
You mean “forbidden” right Mr. Bad?
Antigone says:
You mean “forbidden” right Mr. Bad?
Ahhh, how you distort the truth!
As with so many other characteristics, males and females have different average behaviors when it comes to putting them selves in danger.
Hugo has observed that so many lower-class young women compete over access to males (clearly because their genes, at least, recognize that if they don’t manage to acquire a bicycle when they are at the peak of their attractiveness, they will be left to dry out). Similarly, men are in the same boat; many of them have to take extreme risks to have a chance of acquiring some fish.
As Ilka says, women ration sex while men ration committment. C’est la vie!
Hugo – Antigone is gone now, according to your rules.
Antigone, and Loki: I’m bending the rules for you but THAT IS IT. No more “small points” or “just one mores”. Please, folks, can you respect my blog that much?
And Perplexed, you know what they say about tattle-tales. On the topic, everyone, or leave.
“Feminist reaction: The reaction to these t-shirts from women is to be sympathised with. Encouraging competition is bad, Must Do Something About It.”
Perplexed: Hugo is the only “feminist” I’ve met who claims that competitiveness amongst women is wrong and that feminism is about young women feeling better about themselves. I think it is relevant that he is framing these opinions from a male-biased point of view.
Hugo says:
Antigone, and Loki: I’m bending the rules for you but THAT IS IT
Actually, I though I dragged it back on topic.
With respect to the topic, it seems to me that you have a bunch of ridiculous romantic ideals. Reality is a matter of supply and demand. Most women want better than the average man, and there are more women on campus than men these days (even if, as recent papers suggest, a proportion of them are older women
.
Hugo is the only “feminist” I’ve met who claims that competitiveness amongst women is wrong
Ever read Naomi Wolf?
Yes, she spends a lot of time talking about men.
She also, Q, spends a lot of time talking about the deleterious effect that intra-female competitiveness has on women’s relationships with other women.
Perplexed: I just don’t think you’re going to get anywhere near understanding these issues while you choose to have a double standard.
Where are you getting this? Please, read and respond to the words I’ve actually written, not the ones you’re projecting onto me.
Let me break it down: This is a blog about feminism. In my mind (YMMV, of course), feminism is not about trying to step on or otherwise reduce men, but rather to help women to excel and reach our potential. If we’re busy fighting with each other, we can’t/won’t help each other to improve. Period.
That said, my gaze isn’t directed to the reaction of the person seeing the shirt (aww, it’s okay for you to be angry), but rather to the person who chose the shirt in the first place — to hope that someday, girls can make better choices. If a woman wore the lust-inspiring clothing with the intention of distracting men, I’d think she’s out of line also.
The reaction of a woman seeing one of these t-shirts, or of a man seeing someone dressed to provoke lust? Irrelevant to this post.
I think Hugo usually does a really good job of being fair. I want to acknowledge this before I disagree
I have read Naomi Wolf, and I am also familiar with Carol Gilligan, et al. There are some “feminist” thinkers who insist on continuing to put women in a box- albeit a different box. They use blanket, hippie, outdated, feel good generalizations about women as a group (women are more concerned with the feelings of others and getting along, etc. etc.). They often go a step further by refusing to acknowledge that if these generalizations have merit, socialization plays a big role (ie, it’s not programmed into our genes). This group of feminists apparently think they are doing women a service by generalizing and insisting that the generalized traits they assign to all women are as good (just different) or morally superior to men. What BS !!!!
People are competitive. We are all competing for scarce resources. We don’t always play fair and nice. Them there are the facts. I am wondering if this competitive nature is of more concern to Hugo when it comes from a woman. And could this be because he subscribes to the “feminist” schools of thought above ?
I am not defending competitiveness at the cost of treating other people badly or being mean spirited. I am just saying that it exists in both sexes, but is frequently condoned and even encouraged in men. On the other hand, many women are given the message to be “nice” and quash all negative feelings, or to refrain from openly competing with others (even if the competition is of the healthy variety). This is not adaptive behaviour, nor is it natural.
Hugo said: “She also, Q, spends a lot of time talking about the deleterious effect that intra-female competitiveness has on women’s relationships with other women.”
Hugo, does Wolf mention anything about the deleterious effects female competition with men has? We were discussing this exact thing in another recent thread re. East European brides, remember? I believe it was perplexed who made the very good point that men don’t want to have to compete all day at the office and then at the end of the day when he wishes to relax, instead have to deal with a competitive wife. Seems to me that in that case you didn’t see anything wrong with competition (and many of your more radfem posters shamed such men as ‘afraid of strong women’) but in this case you do. Why is competition between women bad but competition between women and men Ok, or at least no big deal when the woman is prevailing? Or another way, seeing as how with competition there are almost always winners and losers, you seem to only have a problem when women are losing, either at the hands of men or other women. Why, and why don’t you ever to seem to have a problem when men lose unless someone points out inconsistency in your words (e.g., the “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” shirts)?
JB said: “I am just saying that it exists in both sexes, but is frequently condoned and even encouraged in men. On the other hand, many women are given the message to be “nice” and quash all negative feelings, or to refrain from openly competing with others (even if the competition is of the healthy variety).”
Actually JB, I don’t see women being discouraged from competing, especially with men – the phrase “you go girl” comes immediately to mind. What I do see is men being encouraged not to compete with women, and when they must, to “be nice” and let them win.
Am I the only one thinking that Hugo doesn’t think competition between women is bad per se, but rather “not academic competition, but sexualized competition”? What I’m getting is that Hugo would think it’s just dandy for women to compete till the cows come home for grades, jobs, athletics, and so forth — or at least it’s no more lamentable than men competing with one another, or men and women competing for those things. (This interpretation is also supported by the post he did recently on his grading style in which he argues that competition between students is part of the deal.)
What is being decried here is competition based on who can most successfully employ her sexuality to get one over on other women.
I do see that his bolded language makes a general statement that it’s part of a feminist journey to learn not to see other women as rivals, but given the modifying word “attractive” in the next sentence, I’m guessing that to mean rivals in the looks/sexuality/who can attract more men sense, and not in the academic, career, athletic or other sense.
I don’t mean to imply I agree or disagree with his argument — I’m still thinking about it — but I’m wondering why so many people seem to be ascribing to him an aversion to female competitiveness generally. I don’t think it’s there in what he wrote. Hugo? Can you clarify?
Mr Bad- you didn’t point out any inconsistency, because those T shirts don’t exist, none of them have the ‘throw rocks at them’ part on, according to the website you yourself linked. And those T shirts weren’t for young women, but for young girls, so they are hardly relevant to the discussion in hand.
Interesting! I imagine these t-shirts are somewhat of a Rorshach test. I’ve always had an utterly different interpretation of that T-shirt (Tell your boyfriend I said thanks): Yes, as a challenge, but to a different set of ideas than you’re describing. I’ve seen those as being an (ironic) critique of the whole virgin-whore dynamic. The “thanks” part suggests that the t-shirt wearer was/is able to enjoy herself, and winks at the idea that the girlfriend is saddled with a player who is perhaps good (in the sack) but is otherwise disloyal. It seems a critique of the kind of crummy relationships “good” girls end up selling themselves into. So I find it as a challenge, yes, but one that’s designed to make one rethink the concept of sluttishness and question what good girls are really getting out of their relationships….
Sorry, “good” girls should be in scare quotes.
This group of feminists apparently think they are doing women a service by generalizing and insisting that the generalized traits they assign to all women are as good (just different) or morally superior to men. What BS !!!!
This is the constant feminist theme – women are saints, men sinners (with the ‘it’s not their fault bless ‘em, they’re just part of the patriarchy’).
Feminism could win a lot of supporters if they held women to the same standards of behaviour they expect from men. In fact, if they did that, I might even consider feminism (seriously!). If you held everybody to the same standards of behaviour, wow – you’re looking at treating people equally. Equality of rights comes with it the equality of responsibility. As it stands, there’s the age-old excuse of ‘patriarchy’ to beat men over the head with time and again – it puts women on the victim pedestal, and of course, victims can’t be berated – you need to treat them with kid gloves – there’s always mitigating circumstances why they do what they do; you can’t question their behaviour – that’s just cruel.
Some scripture:
why judge the spec of dust in thine brethren’s eye, when thou hast not removed the plank of wood from thine own
Mr Bad- you didn’t point out any inconsistency, because those T shirts don’t exist, none of them have the ‘throw rocks at them’ part on
FYI harpy:-
Book on sale at Amazon
Wikipedia Entry
Google Results
perplexed:
Patriarchy is any society in which the most powerful positions are held by males; where, as power increases, female representation decreases. That we live in patriarchy is a matter of statistical analysis. However, there are many different interpretations as to why patriarchy exists; and there are some, like our esteemable Mr. Bad, who believe that it’s okay that way.
The critique of sexual competition between women is specifically done alongside an belief that ending patriarchy is a good thing. Since women and men are in different statistical positions within patriarchy, it is good sociological analysis to try to parse out what that difference is, and one’s sexuality and sexual desirability is viewed extremely differently between the genders. Perhaps T-Shirts have some meaning in the greater dialogue.
This theme has recently been considered in the Pink song “Stupid Girls”; the point being, you may win Joe Campus but you ain’t winning the presidency, and you’re a damn fool to sell yourself short like that. Considering the T&A factor on television is vastly skewed towards women – men not even having the necessary T – there is good reason for people to examine the role of sexuality and sexual competition between women, and to discuss different approach. However, the League of Feminists (g), is far from agreed on the approach to these issues; and at many feminists sites, there is heated and sometimes vicious discussions regarding the issues therein.
Arwen, your definition of patriarchy is pretty much the commonly accepted one in the feminist community, though it has little resemblance to the true meaning. It’s really quite simple. Patriarchy is nothing more nor less than rule by a central male figure, known as a patriarch, who is generally a very senior father figure. There are no elections in a patriarchy, any more than there are in a monarchy, and this form of rule is generally found only on a small scale, in tribal settings. In a monarchy, the monarch is a known public figure, his rule unquestioned. In a patriarchal society, the patriarch is easily identified, and his authority is unquestioned within his clan (challenges rare and often fatal). The term has been coopted and a useful definition created out of thin air to suit the ideological needs of a special interest group. It’s one of those lies that gets repeated often enough and loud enough.
Chasing a phantom menace results in frustration and seeing the enemy in every corner, so the faithful end up striking out almost randomly; there is always the fear that this thing or that thing is perpetuating the horrible patriarchy. The warriors end up swinging at one another at times, since there is no genuine target. We see this when feminists attack one another, accusing them of failing the test of true feminism, as in this very thread. These t-shirts are as good a patriarchal target as any, right? Ah, but some disagree, and the internecine attacks commence. Tilters at windmills turn on each other. Yet a TRULY sexist t-shirt, aimed at children no less, raises few eyebrows – and some even deny that such a thing exists.
An Artie Johnson quote seems appropriate here. Anyone remember him?
I was sitting in my art history class at PCC this intersession and this attractive young lady walked in about 15 minutes late and her t-shirt read: Do I Make You Look Fat? Now this large class(about 50 students) stopped in the middle of discussion and we all seemed to have read her t-shirt at the same exact moment. Honestly, throughout the rest of lecture and discussion I kept turning around to see if her shirt actually said what I thought it said, it was distracting to say the least.
After googling, I found this:
http://girlytops.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GirlyTops&Product_Code=TLFITCHFAT
This is the same exact t-shirt she was wearing. The other t-shirt is even more disturbing, “I Hate Food”.
These t-shirts are as good a patriarchal target as any, right? Ah, but some disagree, and the internecine attacks commence. Tilters at windmills turn on each other.
Yes, the lurid spectacle of women disagreeing with each other is certainly a horror to inspire the vapors in all who behold it.
Arwen, your whole point rests on this idea of ‘patriarchy’ – as stanton articulately points out, because it’s an intangible ‘force’ you’re fighting, you often find the wrong targets to hit. What you’re describing is a class system. You think any man can be president? If there’s a patriarchy, this is the case. This is not the case.
Back on topic:-
I was sitting in my art history class at PCC this intersession and this attractive young lady walked in about 15 minutes late and her t-shirt read: Do I Make You Look Fat? Now this large class(about 50 students) stopped in the middle of discussion and we all seemed to have read her t-shirt at the same exact moment. Honestly, throughout the rest of lecture and discussion I kept turning around to see if her shirt actually said what I thought it said, it was distracting to say the least.
Cara, I sympathise with your reaction (and your class’s reaction) to such a message. However, to observe the standard of behaviour Hugo has for men, he would say that this women has every right to wear such a t-shirt, and she is not responsible for your negative reaction towards it.
Hugo, where are you ?
What ARE your feelings when it comes to female competition, especially of the sexual variety? I am a feminist, but I am also heavy into ethology. It is true that sexual competition is a matter of nature in all animal species, predominately among males. Does it make you uncomfortable that females are sexually competitive, or is it that you think the tee shirt was a particularly mean spirited way to express it ?
Please weigh in on this as we are all speculating…
sophonisba: Yes, the lurid spectacle of women disagreeing with each other is certainly a horror to inspire the vapors in all who behold it.
The disagreement I refer to is of particular type (which “tools of the patriarchy” must be blunted) and with a particular theme (attacking the genuineness of the others’ feminism), and springing from a very specific cause (there being no real target, since there is no real patriarchy, thus there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes a target). Some feminists have laid into Hugo with invective that would have gotten Mr. Bad banned in a heartbeat.
JB, ethology is an excellent tool for studying, say, ducks.
Human free will and socialization can trump biology every time — if we choose to exercise it. Women have not always been competitive in the way that they are now — all one has to do is look at the history of women’s social organizations in the nineteenth century. We are at a historic nadir of women’s solidarity today compared to earlier waves of feminism.
Human free will and socialization can trump biology every time — if we choose to exercise it.
Hmm – so can homosexuals be socialised into being heterosexuals? You make nature sound bad. When does the control of nature turn into suppression of nature?
We are at a historic nadir of women’s solidarity today compared to earlier waves of feminism.
What does this say about 40 years of feminism?
Hugo said: “JB, ethology is an excellent tool for studying, say, ducks.
Human free will and socialization can trump biology every time — if we choose to exercise it.”
Yes, free will and socialization can trump biology every time – just like an asteroid can hit the earth any time – but that doesn’t mean that free will and socialization will trump biology every time. Some people just don’t have the strength of character, common decency, etc., to exercise free will in a socially responsible manner.
Continuing: “Women have not always been competitive in the way that they are now — all one has to do is look at the history of women’s social organizations in the nineteenth century. We are at a historic nadir of women’s solidarity today compared to earlier waves of feminism.”
This is speculation and opinion on your part based on the historical record that you choose to observe. However, the historical record is always inaccurate at some level because it is written by people who see things through various ‘lenses’ that reflect the society and culture at the time.
Finally, I see the current state of women’s solidarity as a reflection of a healthy trend in our society, that being an increasing sense of pride as individuals rather than drones in a collective led by some few elites who are just certain that they know better than the masses what is best for society (i.e., fascism). That feminism is growing ever more out of favor with the public is quite encouraging and gives me hope that we’re finally coming to our senses vis-a-vis true equal rights and responsibility for all.
Stanton: I agree with you that the history of the word patriarchy is multi-faceted. I’ll point you to the wiki definition – which, at least, reflects current understanding (as language is a changing dance)…
Patriarchy (from Greek: pater (genitive form patris, showing the root patr-), meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.
I also understand your critique about chasing at phantoms; it is true that it can be hard to ascertain what variables cause a particular sociological phenomenon.
However, it is the case that we live in a society – a world, really – where (statistically) the wiki definition of patriarchy applies.
Obviously, that bothers some people. Myself included. It may be that it does not bother you: and that is a first premise that no amount of logic can prove or disprove. I don’t like it; you’re okay with it – we must agree to disagree.
However, logic is useful. Because we can choose, for the moment, to accept first premises – for the sake of argument.
I would ask you to float the test balloon of accepting a) the wiki definition of patriarchy, and b) that such a system is in some way sub-optimal. (That it is sub-optimal is true at least for the feminists of this board, and for many women fighting for societal respect historically.)
If you can see your way through to accepting those premises for the sake of argument, you may very well be able to construct an explanation where T-shirts (representative of sexual mores) are not an issue. Again, though, there are so many uncontrolled variables… that for me, at least, I’m not comfortable to clearly say one way or t’other. Doubtless all feminists tilt at windmills at times; at the same time, a lot has been done to change the system that legally prevents women from moving through the greater world, and at every step of the way someone has said we’re windmill tilting.
Those of us who are interested in gender equalization have different ideas about how and why our societal structuring has come to pass, and how best a solution can be found. It is a new field, relatively, and obviously any anthropological study is hard to interpret because it is hard to strip away factors. With “patriarchy”, doubly so, since there aren’t many/any other forms of society to compare to.
And perplexed – your logic has failed you. There can only be one top dog. That that person is usually a white man does not mean that all white men can be top dogs. Again tripped up on the syllogism! Feminists are not arguing that all women should be president. I am not arguing that I should be made Prime Minister.
And perplexed – your logic has failed you. There can only be one top dog. That that person is usually a white man does not mean that all white men can be top dogs. Again tripped up on the syllogism! Feminists are not arguing that all women should be president. I am not arguing that I should be made Prime Minister.
I didn’t actually say “all white men can be president”. In fact, I didn’t even mention skin colour. I said men of a certain class are far, far more likely to be president. By class I primarily mean what family they’re born into, and what college/university they attended, and even their standing within that small community. Unless all men have the opporunity to attend such universities or be born into the ‘network of power’, I think you need to replace the word ‘patriarchy’ with ‘class’. I’m not saying that these small, powerful networks aren’t patriarchal in themselves, but it’s wrong to label the whole of society as ‘patriarchal’. Do you really believe these small numbers of people are primarily looking after men, and treating women as second class citizens? The vast majority of men are completely excluded from the upper echelons of power. I am not part of a patriarchy and I am no more privileged than my sister or my mum.
You’re right about patriarchy being a term with many meanings. In most children’s lives, the authority figures are usually their mum and dad. Personally I would say western society is more matriarchal with the amount of fatherless households there are.
Um, perplexed; read the wiki definition again. Sure, class is much ado about power: there’s nothing in that statement which denies that.
So, why aren’t women more equally represented? Could it be that all women are of a lower class then men? In which case, there’s a way to examine the problem. (And there are some feminists who very much focus on the economic inequalities between men and women. Very few feminists would disagree that class and gender inequality collude in a number of ways.) However, there are women in the upper classes who have connections.
The fact of the matter is, in a sample of people with power, you’re going to find more guys than gals.
Arwen: I can work with the Wikipedia definition of patriarchy, even though it seriously goies against my grain, as it is clearly a corruption of a useful term, done for ideological purposes. The “Newspeak” approach to forcing social change rubs me the wrong way. The crux of this def is the last part, “the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.” Since every society in known human history has had this particular trait (according to the same Wikipedia article, quoting Margaret Meade), I’m not sure that it’s a particularly useful definition. The term, as I have experienced its use by feminists, is often weilded as a weapon, carrying far deeper significance than this. Their patriarchy is like a living, malevolent force existing for the purpose of keeping males on top and females subservient, and that must be opposed vigilantly – perhaps even violently – or else acquiesce to the shell of a life which is all the beast will allow a woman. This evil force has many tools at its disposal, which are very subtly employed to suppress women, even recruiting women themselves to participate in their own oppression. This goes far beyond the Wikipedia definition.
So – I will use the Wikipedia definition of patriarchy for the purposes of the discussion here. Given that definition alone, then I will admit that modern western society – and every human society that has ever existed on earth – is a “patriarchy”. I would not agree with you calling it a phenomenon, since it’s a universal, but that’s neither here nor there.
Is such a system sub-optimal? Okay – lets say it is sub-optimal. Given this definition, and a wish for a non-patriarchal society, there is no reason to believe the t-shirts play any role whatsoever in the male/female ratio in power positions. I surely agree. Yet there are feminists who do believe they play a role – or at least are a symptom of the machinations of patriarchal tools. That’s what inspired this thread, after all. This belief comes from a definition of patriarchy closer to the one I gave – the Wikipedia definition does not suit the needs of serious social activism. It provides no enemy to be opposed and engaged. It’s simply a problem to be understood and addressed. The anger that some Women’s Studies professors carefully calculate to engender in their students has no oppressor upon which to vent.
You said that “a lot has been done to change the system that legally prevents women from moving through the greater world”. In western Europe and America, can you tell me of ANY legal barriers to women’s movement through their societies? I can think of many legal ASSISTS to women in particular, but no legal barriers. Can you identify any?
You make a very good point about how someone is always making the accusation of windmill tilting – at every stage of progress – so why should such an accusation be taken seriously now? It’s clear that there was serious sexism to be addressed in the past; we can see that quite clearly in retrospect. Should the suffragettes have stopped their campaign when they heard such accusations? Obviously not – so by implication, the same is true today. It’s certainly true that an accusation is not a proof – it’s simply a hypothesis, and some are more credible than others. They must be tested and proven – they don’t stand alone.
Let me propose a different hypothesis for you, Arwen. I suggest that patriarhy, as you and I have agreed it is defined, may or may not be a problem, but active sexism is a definite problem – an evil that harms all members of society, and should be actively opposed wherever it is found. If sexism can be addressed and undermined, then perhaps a better understanding of the reasons for universal patriarchy would emerge. Then the consideration of t-shirts would take on a different character, not involving the degree of appropriate “feministing” of the opiners.
Your last paragraph bothers me, I must say, in the reference to “gender equalization”. This implies the a priori assumption that equal outcomes for both genders in most or all things is a desirable goal. It assumes that natural equilibrium and optimal social functioning would occur when full gender equality of life results is achieved. Leaving aside the logical followup that exactly equivalent outcomes for all racial and ethnic groups must also be assured, as well as among and between nations, body types, religious groups, etc. – there is simply no evidence that human society as whole or humans as individuals would be better off in such a world. Equalization is an active term, implying forced intervention to produce the desired outcome. Hadn’t one better start by finding some evidence that this is a good thing to do? There is no evidence that it is – and plenty of evidence that such interventions are calamitous when attempted on a large scale.
I hope there is enough t-shirt material in here to avoid the withering gaze of the dreaded “thread-drift” monster!
So, why aren’t women more equally represented? Could it be that all women are of a lower class then men? In which case, there’s a way to examine the problem. (And there are some feminists who very much focus on the economic inequalities between men and women. Very few feminists would disagree that class and gender inequality collude in a number of ways.) However, there are women in the upper classes who have connections.
The fact of the matter is, in a sample of people with power, you’re going to find more guys than gals.
In the UK, it’s been accepted that it’s simply the case that not enough women are making themselves candidates for positions of power in the government. If you don’t have female candidates in equal numbers to men, well – it’s obvious isn’t it?
This is the usual feminist red herring – it’s what they do with their power that counts. Do you see governments systematically treating women and 2nd class citizens? If so, please cite specific examples (not wild interpretations, specific, unequivocal examples).
Stanton, you manaage to work in enough to avoid thread drift. Perplexed, work harder at the same task. Please, folks.
perplexed: Monster got ya!
Pingback: The Happy Feminist
It assumes that natural equilibrium and optimal social functioning would occur when full gender equality of life results is achieved.
I’m not sure that it does, Stanton – it just gives me hope that I have a snowball’s chance in hell to nurture a dream – the question is not “will minority inclusion be better?”. It is a question of simple humanity. I’m a human, after all, and I want to have equal access to the dream of finding my place in the world, regardless of the genitalia I may be wearing.
I don’t think cultural movements need a specific bad guy – they interrogate patterns of relationships, including those between women and other women; yes, sometimes it’s tilting at windmills, but othertimes, philosophy and culture have utterly changed our experience of the world. I know two languages, and each is better at different ways of experiencing. The sexualization/competition between women has definitely been a primary way to cultural female power, and so is worthy of being at least questioned.
Unfortunately, any further measured response I have to this is *definitely* Non-T-Shirt territory! I hope you’ll forgive, Hugo, because I think stanton’s gotten down to brass tacks here… But I will sign off the thread…
Pingback: Peter
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding s t-shirts, class, competition, and sisterhood. at Hugo Schwyzer, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong