In yesterday’s post about Max, my erstwhile colleague who devised an elaborate rating system for his female students, I wrote that he sought to establish "control and power" over the women in his classes by secretly evaluating them on their looks without their knowledge."
That’s ridiculous Hugo. How the hell does one establish "power and control" over another person by secretly ranking their ‘hotness?’ If those women didn’t know he did this, just how would they be "controlled" or influenced in any way whatsoever by it?
Let me be clear that there is a distinction between what someone like Max was trying to do (establish power and control) and what he actually succeeded in doing.
In our society, the right to "grade" and "rank" others is a reflection of power and status. Those of us who teach, for example, earn the right to grade our students’ work. In one arena of life, namely the classroom, it is understood that we have the authority to evaluate and judge. Good teachers never abuse that power. They take their obligation to mark and give feedback very seriously, understanding that their students’ lives will often be significantly impacted by the grades that are given. I’ll never forget what it felt like when I first started giving grades — the sense of responsibility was tremendous, bordering on near-reverence. There was also for me (and I’ve heard this from other teachers) a sudden awareness of power that was almost frightening.
Why do men enjoy secretly — or in Max’s case, not so secretly — "ranking" women on their looks? I’m convinced that the pleasure lies in that same sense of asserting power and control. It’s true that Max’s students are aware that they are being graded on their work, but are ignorant as to his "other ranking system." But even if Max is capable of keeping his two systems separate, and doesn’t allow his judgments about his students’ "hotness" to affect the grades he gives, it seems likely that his real pleasure in grading the girls lies in a fantasy about exerting power over them.
There’s an element of rage in all of this as well, I think. Call it the "revenge of the nerd" phenomenon. (Pace, my self-described feminist nerd friends!) Some men who believe themselves to be fundamentally unattractive, who have experienced little success with women, develop complex and often horrifying "revenge" fantasies. One tired and overused theme in written porn is of drugs or mind-control devices that allow the "nerd" to gain access to the bodies of young, beautiful women who have previously shown no interest in him. Stories of lovely cheerleaders getting their "comeuppances" are standard tropes in pornography. It would be sad and pathetic if it wasn’t so terrifying! The misogynistic anger of the inept, the clumsy, and the rejected at ‘those stuck-up bitches" is phenomenally powerful. In some men, it manifests in rape; in others, it manifests in pornographic fantasy — and in rating systems like the one Max devised.
I suspect that Max derives considerable pleasure from his ranking system. Part of that pleasure lies in the sense of power I am convinced he derives from carefully making decisions, evaluating and ranking the young women in his class. Max is, as far as I know, still a single man — married once and divorced long ago. He may never have actually "crossed the line physically" with his students, but there seems little doubt that he does so (or was, back in 1997) in his mind. I don’t think what he’s doing — or was doing — is a fire-able offense, but it is profoundly unethical. It is, at its core, not about sex. It’s about power, and it’s about a deep and enduring rage at women.
You’re reaching, Hugo. Big time. It’s all about Max being an immature, horny bastard. Nothing more and nothing less. As even Freud acknowledged, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You’re reaching, Hugo. Big time. It’s all about Max being an immature, horny bastard. Nothing more and nothing less. As even Freud acknowledged, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Well, I think what is described would be entirely consistent with being an immature, horny bastard. None of us are in a position to psychoanalyze Max here, but Hugo’s right that a lot of guys have a bit of subdued resentment towards the female of the species, and that may manifest itself in little ways like this. What he’s doing theoretically hurts no one, assuming his opinions on the matter never go any further than the paper his “rankings” are written on … but it’s not the sort of exercise that a teacher with any level of self-discipline and respect for his/her students would typically engage in, either.
Hugo wrote: “Let me be clear that there is a distinction between what someone like Max was trying to do (establish power and control) and what he actually succeeded in doing.”
And just how is it that you know that Max is trying to “establish power and control” (presumably over his students)? Did he tell you, or are you just assuming it? If it’s not the former, then what you’re doing is speculating and since you’ve offered no evidence proving your thesis the rest of your missive is based on very, very weak grounds.
Do you think it’s possible that Max was simply doing nothing more than rating the girls? I do. I don’t believe he had the kind of sinister motives that you seem to believe that he did. The fact that you just seem to know that Max is out to “control” those girls smacks of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
I trust you’re sporting your tinfoil hat, right?
It is, at its core, not about sex. It’s about power…
i think it’s safe to say it’s about both, as the two are so inextricably intertwined in our culture, and thus in both the conscious and subconscious parts of peoples’ minds.
If you remember the actual movie Revenge of the Nerds, when the nerds wanted to “get [previously lost power] back” at the jocks and sorority sisters they put the jocks in chemical pain and looked at the girls naked. Retribution against the sorority girls was specifically to see them naked and be made into the nerd’s pornography, and that was considered adequate power-stealing punishment for the girls.
Poor Betty was even made into Pi Porn at the nerd’s pie booth as a further way for them to express their rage and assert their power, with the added insult that it was the head jock’s Pi they made into pornography sold to other men who bought so much of it that the nerds won that portion of the contest.
It seems really weird that you, Hugo, are making such a big deal about this after having admitted publicly in this blog that you had slept with your students in the past. Your judgmental tone is never pleasant, but it seems most curiously misplaced here, considering that you have publicly announced that you’ve engaged in behavior far worse than what Max has done.
I don’t remember Hugo ever saying he slept with a student.
And I always, ALWAYS hated “Revenge of the Nerds”. Maybe it was expectation violation, because I was a nerd and I thought this was the movie for me, but I thought that they were overly cruel to the females.
p>Taylor’s actually right, Antigone. My pre-conversion behavior fell stunningly short of the mark. I never ranked my students the way Max did, but during a brief period many years ago, I conducted some unethical, immoral, consensual relationships with students. I did blog about this once before.
While I was doing what I was doing, I was aware of just how wrong it was. I was sinning, and choosing to sin. I offer no excuses or defense. As I wrote eighteen months ago, I have made amends to everyone involved (from the students in question, to my division dean, the head of human resources, the college president, and at least one member of the board of trustees).
It’s at least partly because of my past, Taylor (and everyone), that I have taken the strong line I have on issues of boundaries, crushes, and so forth. I have paid a huge price in terms of my credibility and my relationships for my candor (I could easily have kept this quiet). My wife has definitely paid a price, even though we got together years after this behavior ended!
I have done everything humanly possible to turn these past wrongs into positive goods. That means speaking boldly (and enduring a lot of justified sniping while doing so). It meant writing a consensual relationships policy for the college as part of a very public amends process.
And you know what else is part of that amends process? Bringing up issues like Max’s.
Now that I’ve said that, I’m not prepared to have this post turn into yet another discussion of my past. I realize that by writing about my own life so much, I end up distracting attention away from other issues. But further discussion of my past will constitute thread drift.
Email me if you want to discuss this further. But leave it out of this thread.
Max is clearly stuck in adolescence in at least part of his psyche, and there is no basis at all for any further conclusions about him.
I recall doing something similar when I was in high school, I believe. I was inspired by a fad of the time, which was called “slam books”. These were very popular among the girls. A slam book was a spiral notebook with the name of a male student on each page. The notebooks were passed around among the girls and they would put a comment on each page, one for each boy. The books were carefully guarded from the boys, but on occasion some boy would get his hands on one and pass it around so we could see what various girls thought of the guys, as the girls screamed “GIVE IT BAAAACK!!” (I generally wasn’t even popular enough to have a page devoted to me, as I recall.)
Hugo, where is the evidence that “In our society, the right to ‘grade’ and ‘rank’ others is a reflection of power and status?” I submit that anyone who wishes can rank anyone else they wish in the manner that Max did or in any other manner, no matter how much or how little power and status they possess. This is trivially true, as demonstrated by the “slam book” girls of my school days. This “proof by declaration” stuff should embarrass a self-respecting professor.
This is a case of feminist outrage at the temerity of this professor. The righteous indignation is almost amusing, as you struggle to find some way to have this childishness feed into the feminist vision of a society of male oppression. Doesn’t fit, folks.
Oy vey.
stanton, I believe Hugo’s point is that Max is not ranking random women. If he were ranking “the hottest women walking by Starbucks while I was having my latte today”, it would be equally childish. Max is ranking his own students, who are neither strangers nor people over whom he otherwise has no power whatsoever. You don’t have to have any level of believe in a ‘society of male oppression’ to perceive that Max has some issues beyond being immature.
So Christianity or equity feminism are now creeds on which ex-scoundrells may seek to re-new their own platform of judgement over others.
Also, the following accusations reflect malicious projections from a weak man who himself craves a level of control of the hate within himself.
Look below: see 10 unsupported assertions about the state of another mans mind. Assertions that are then used to give a feeble man justification for action.
In our society, the right to “grade” and “rank” others is a reflection of power and status.
Why do men enjoy secretly — or in Max’s case, not so secretly — “ranking” women on their looks? I’m convinced that the pleasure lies in that same sense of asserting power and control.
There’s an element of rage in all of this as well, I think. Call it the “revenge of the nerd” phenomenon. (Pace, my self-described feminist nerd friends!)
Some men who believe themselves to be fundamentally unattractive, who have experienced little success with women, develop complex and often horrifying “revenge” fantasies.
It would be sad and pathetic if it wasn’t so terrifying! The misogynistic anger of the inept, the clumsy, and the rejected at ‘those stuck-up bitches” is phenomenally powerful.
In some men, it manifests in rape; in others, it manifests in pornographic fantasy — and in rating systems like the one Max devised.
It’s about power, and it’s about a deep and enduring rage at women.
The problem is that “max” isn’t rating his students on thier desirability, he is rating them on thier desirability TO HIM. If max someone he made class lists based on the women he would most like to rape – people would be shocked and appalled (one hopes!).
Instead he makes of list of the women who he interacts with, who come to him with questions, who come alone into his office, examining them; thier looks, thier outfits and, in plain terms, how much they sexually excite him (intellectually of course!). How is this different than the last list? These are not consenting adults because no consent on whether they wish to be the object of their teachers considered lust is allowed.
Would you have a problem if you found a Junior High teacher was doing this with his 14 year old students? Or if an Elementary school teacher was doing it with 9 year old students. I think you would because you realize the implication of non-consentual sex behind such a list. Yet when the girls are 18 instead of 14, it is a good thing?
Hugo,
The degree to which you manage to misdiagnose the causes of the ‘scorecard’ is unbelievable.
Apparently it must represent some misogynistic wish to hold power over women.
Rubbish!
We all make aesthetic evaluations all the time, whether we are aware of this or not. It can be no different – we are all products of evolution in which one of the strongests selective factors has been our ability to find macthing mates.
Maybe you like to think of yourself as above such base impulses, but you are not. Nor are women, although we live in a culture that represents them as more sophisticated than men. They are just as much products of evolution and thus will make the same evalutions all the time.
Would it not be nice if everything fit nicely into your little worldview?
Any kind of action that you disagree with you are always able, magically to reduce to your favorite anathema.
Well, the world is just not that simple.
elizabeth wrote: “Instead he makes of list of the women who he interacts with, who come to him with questions, who come alone into his office, examining them; thier looks, thier outfits and, in plain terms, how much they sexually excite him (intellectually of course!). How is this different than the last list?”
Interesting. Hugo has written many posts about women’s self-image, alleged ‘opreesion’ of women by a ‘patriarchal’ society by restrictive standards of beauty, etc., and in every post he is using his students (and others at PCC) as examples. His recent “sausage suit” missive is but one example. Clearly he is ‘ranking’ them, albeit in his mind instead of on paper. In fact, Hugo is quite open – even brazen – about his judging others based on appearance, although he uses a ‘PC-scale’ rather than a ‘hotness’ one. So is he too exercising ‘power and control’ or does this only apply to non-feminist heterosexual men like Max?
Hugo, stanton is right – this proof by declaration stuff you and others engage in is embarassing. For you.
In our society, the right to “grade” and “rank” others is a reflection of power and status.
That is not an unsupported assertion. Person A has power (grade, performance reviw leading to pay change, etc.) over Persons B, C, D, E, and F. If the idea is to use the power to reward and punish in the most accurate, most dealing-with-the-criteria-that-are-part-of-what-makes-a-good-student/employee.etc. way, does it help or hurt the process when beauty and/or sexuality are brought into the process, even as an unrelated issue? Not unless the criteria for success involve, up front, physical beauty/sexuality. And this goes for men as well as women. I can’t imagine that, if a plain-looking man was up for a performance review, he’d want his female boss to have made a ranking of the studliness of the men in her department.
Yes, people may make such ranking in their heads all the time. But when you’re a person who has the power to grade other people on various criteria and have that ranking matter, and when that criteria has nothing to do with sexuality, the best thing that you can do is to put any such thoughts as far away from you as you can. And the more one thinks about something, the harder it is to forget.
And you know, maybe Max is putting all of his ranking out of his head when it comes to grading. Maybe he covers up the students’ names on their papers so that he’s not biased when it comes time to grade. If that’s the case, I say bravo, because he’s making sure his behavior patterns don’t negatively or positively impact where they shouldn’t. If he’s not, than he could be setting himself up for a charge of grade tampering.
But does Hugos biases towards favour of women create a hostile environment for the young men in his charge.
How would this own problem of his affect Hugos grading of boys in class?
…We cant have one with the right and rank to grade with any personal ideas negatively impacting where they shouldnt eh ?
We all make aesthetic evaluations all the time, whether we are aware of this or not.
There’s a difference between making aesthetic evaluations (“I think this woman is cuter than that one”) and evaluating those in a subordinate relationship to you, quantifying/ranking those evaluations, and recording them in a medium meant for evaluating their work (whether it influences the grading or not).
I’m rather surprised the MRA visitors aren’t angry at Max–after all, how well is a male student going to fare in Max’s class? Max has made it pretty plain how little attention he pays to the men in his class.
mythago, jfpbookworm and others: You are drawing a distinction between ranking random women and ranking those over whom one has power. First of all, that is a dinstinction Hugo did not draw when he said: “In our society, the right to “grade” and “rank” others is a reflection of power and status.” Are you then agreeing that this statement is absurd, but in the situation of Max, the power he has as an instructor makes it wrong?
Again, any conclusions drawn beyond the obvious adolescence of Max’s behaviour are mere projections and say much more about the projector than about Max. As Mr Bad pointed out, Hugo uses his students in a comparative way quite often, even if he does not make a written ranked list. And he inevitably notices that some are very attractive physically. Some of his judgments are negative, as in the t-shirts, and the “I know I’ll get killed for saying this” lead-in. How do we know that he doesn’t ever let these judgments influence his treatment and grading of these students? We don’t. Hugo doesn’t even know, IMHO. Any speculation we do on the topic is our own – there is no basis for it without further evidence. The same is true of Max, people, despite that fact that he committed his judgments to paper in a different way than Hugo does.
Technocracygirl, you are arguing for the wrong thing. You are supporting the concept that someone who possesses evaluative power over others might be improperly influenced in those evaluations by unrelated rankings he may have made on the side. (I was pleased to see that you conclude that there is no way to know whether or not Max has done that.) That’s not the same as the statement you were trying to defend, which states that the ACT of performing a ranking implies power over the ranked. A moment’s reflection will tell you that this is ridiculous. One of the women in the same class may have made a ranked list of the hot guys in the room with no social forces whatever inhibiting her from doing so due to her lack of power in the setting.
elizabeth: “Would you have a problem if you found a Junior High teacher was doing this with his 14 year old students? Or if an Elementary school teacher was doing it with 9 year old students. I think you would because you realize the implication of non-consentual sex behind such a list. Yet when the girls are 18 instead of 14, it is a good thing?”
That’s the same as Bush’s argument for invading Iraq. “Are you going to wait until Saddam drops a nuclear bomb on New York? We have to stop him NOW!” Yes, elizabeth, I would have a problem with these things. And I would have a problem with Max if he made rape list. And I would have a problem with Max if he had a murder list, or if he was unkind to his mother, or he tried to undermine the international monetary system. He didn’t do any of these things, no one has any evidence that he has, and it’s all a distraction from the main point, which is not fitting properly into the worldview of some, thus the red herrings all about the place.
And yes, elizabeth, things change when you shift from dealing with children to adults. As a youth, I married an 18-year old “girl”, and yes, we had consensual sex. And yes, just because she was 18 and not 14 made it okay.
mythago: “I’m rather surprised the MRA visitors aren’t angry at Max–after all, how well is a male student going to fare in Max’s class? Max has made it pretty plain how little attention he pays to the men in his class.”
I understand that this would surprise you, mythago, since feminists are constantly on the watch for things to get upset about about, and as a result they see male oppression every time they turn around. You would expect MRAs to do the same thing. While there are some to be found who have taken up this sad practice, the great majority of us have not gone there. When we see sexism hurting someone we address it. We don’t see it implied in the arrested development poor fellow.
Great post. I’d add that this secret rating system also seems a way for him to assure himself that women don’t really belong in the classroom, that the true measure of women is their looks, not their achievements.
There was an episode of “Buffy” where the nerd fantasy of using magic to control a woman and make her a sex slave was tried out by some characters on the ex-girlfriend of one. She wakes up in the middle of it and realizes she’s being raped and when she tries to escape, their efforts to prevent her (they don’t want to go to jail for rape) result in killing her. It was a great episode, a powerful rebuke to “nice guys” who feel entitled to submissive sex partners.
Hugo,
I think rather Max’s decision to categorize his students is more likely some anal-retentive desire for order and the pleasure of organizing.
Regarding your point that it is an attempt to assert power over the women I think this is wrong. For a start, the world of looks is for the young – older men and women may dislike it, but it’s true. So I think for a start, in at least some situations these students hold the power of beauty over him (they are not lusting after him, they are not desiring something from him, but he from them).
And a final point – it’s simply not true to say that this type of grading is a symbol of power over the women. While I never sat down and formalised a list, when in school, I’m pretty sure I had a rough list of the teachers I thought were good and those who I thought were bad. Same in a past job when I had to work everyday with a number of different superiors – by my having an opinion of my bosses, am I asserting control over them or simply (as is Max) ranking them in order to how they positively impact my life? Couldn’t you in fact make the argument that making such a list is exactly a sign of your own powerlessness over these people, and Max’s over the women?
I happen to think it’s a little creepy to organize the list in the first place and even weirder to blurt out to a colleague such a list’s existence, but I think it’s a little preening to have a sit-down talk with him about and express exactly how offended you were about it.
I have to support Hugo’s reading of the situation. I am disappointed that a professor could do something so blatantly sexist and retain his job.
So…stanton, if a female professor had a listing of all the hot male students in her class, with the rankings from 1 to whatever, then that wouldn’t offend you? (even if you were on the bottom of the list?)
If you go to class, you’re supposed to be graded on how well you learn the subject, not how much the teacher would like to sleep with you. I think “Max” should have been disciplined, if not for making such a list in the first place, then for being stupid (or arrogant) enough to show it off to someone. At the very least, he’s wasting class time.
Re: the questions about how Hugo knows what Max’s intent was.
This reminds me of nothing so much as the research on pharmaceutical companies’ influence over doctors. If trivialities such as free pens and tote bags (not to mention conferences in the Caribbean) can be empirically shown to influence doctors to prescribe Medication A over Medication B, *even when they consciously say it does not* — well, then, I don’t find it hard to believe that Max’s non-academic grades are inevitably going to spill over into his academic grading process.
(I spent ten minutes Googling for the academic cite to the drug-company study I was thinking of, but can’t find it.)
You would expect MRAs to do the same thing.
And they rarely disappoint, stanton. But you’re undergoing some rather unfortunate contortions to avoid giving your perceived enemies any credit.
Witt – so are doctors merely regularly short a pen or two and pharmaceuticals are charities providing the poor sad doctors writing implements? I think pretty much all marketing is done for effect, if just to get a name out there. I really don’t think the two situations are comparable.
Every year this person spends weeks determining the relative fuckability factor of his female students and records it. Why?
Would you consider it healthy if you did this?
Would you want to be this persons student?
Would you want to be in the same room with this person?
I don’t think so.
Stanton:
And yes, elizabeth, things change when you shift from dealing with children to adults. As a youth, I married an 18-year old “girl”, and yes, we had consensual sex. And yes, just because she was 18 and not 14 made it okay.
OK, so we agree it’s a matter of continuum. Now let’s examine the continuum. WHY do you think it’s OK to make a list of 18-year-olds and not of 14-year-olds? Might it have something to do with sexual objectification? WIth the fact that even you must admit that sexually objectifying 14-year-olds is wrong? well, some of us here think it’s wrong to sexually objectify 18-year-olds.
And btw – your example has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this post. Because for the professor, having consensual sex with an 18-year-old student would STILL be wrong, because HE IS THEIR PROFESSOR.
So what we are saying here works on 2 levels:
1. You yourself would be uncomfortable with a list of 14-year-olds, as there is obviously sexual overtones to the list. To feminists, that would make it wrong as re: an 18-year-old, a 21-year-old, or a 69-year-old. We are people, not things.
2. EVEN IF such blatant sexual objectification can be found acceptable (by you, not me) because “that’s how men relate to women in our society” – it’s still wrong for a professor to do so, just as it would be wrong for a professor to have consensual sex with a student, no matter how willing and of-age she is.
OK, so we agree it’s a matter of continuum. Now let’s examine the continuum. WHY do you think it’s OK to make a list of 18-year-olds and not of 14-year-olds? Might it have something to do with sexual objectification? WIth the fact that even you must admit that sexually objectifying 14-year-olds is wrong? well, some of us here think it’s wrong to sexually objectify 18-year-olds.
Feminists typically have trouble distinguishing sexual child abuse, particularly of boys, from sexual acts between consenting adults. Feminist pedophiles regularly support the “hot” female teachers who sexually abuse boys. Your complete recklessness here and willingness to blur boundaries are one indication of such feminist pathology.
And btw – your example has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this post. Because for the professor, having consensual sex with an 18-year-old student would STILL be wrong, because HE IS THEIR PROFESSOR.
Of course, we’re not talking about anyone having sex with anyone else, merely fantasy. Or, is this that nebulous “visual rape” that feminist gorgons like to rant about?
So what we are saying here works on 2 levels:
1. You yourself would be uncomfortable with a list of 14-year-olds, as there is obviously sexual overtones to the list. To feminists, that would make it wrong as re: an 18-year-old, a 21-year-old, or a 69-year-old. We are people, not things.
Feminists treat women as children.
2. EVEN IF such blatant sexual objectification can be found acceptable (by you, not me) because “that’s how men relate to women in our society” – it’s still wrong for a professor to do so, just as it would be wrong for a professor to have consensual sex with a student, no matter how willing and of-age she is.
Look up the definition of “fantasy” and then come back with your hysterics.
There was an episode of “Buffy” where the nerd fantasy of using magic to control a woman and make her a sex slave was tried out by some characters on the ex-girlfriend of one. She wakes up in the middle of it and realizes she’s being raped and when she tries to escape, their efforts to prevent her (they don’t want to go to jail for rape) result in killing her. It was a great episode, a powerful rebuke to “nice guys” who feel entitled to submissive sex partners.
Oh great, now we have a new form of feminist pseudo-rape: the “magical” rape.
I’d add that this secret rating system also seems a way for him to assure himself that women don’t really belong in the classroom, that the true measure of women is their looks, not their achievements.
Or it’s just your own projection and fantasy. Hmmm.
The problem is that “max” isn’t rating his students on thier desirability, he is rating them on thier desirability TO HIM.
Can you say, “a distinction without a difference”?
Again, any conclusions drawn beyond the obvious adolescence of Max’s behaviour are mere projections and say much more about the projector than about Max. As Mr Bad pointed out, Hugo uses his students in a comparative way quite often, even if he does not make a written ranked list. And he inevitably notices that some are very attractive physically. Some of his judgments are negative, as in the t-shirts, and the “I know I’ll get killed for saying this” lead-in. How do we know that he doesn’t ever let these judgments influence his treatment and grading of these students? We don’t. Hugo doesn’t even know, IMHO. Any speculation we do on the topic is our own – there is no basis for it without further evidence. The same is true of Max, people, despite that fact that he committed his judgments to paper in a different way than Hugo does.
That’s an excellent point, stanton. Further, since Hugo has publicly admitted these comments about his male students, there is no way that we can be certain that he can separate his judgments about his male students from his academic evaluations of the work performed by those students. Therefore, Hugo should be removed from employment at PCC.
He is objectifying his male students and that behavior should not be tolerated.
Stanton,
Feminists typically have trouble distinguishing sexual child abuse, particularly of boys, from sexual acts between consenting adults.
No – feminists simply thing that to automatically relate to women as sexual objects is wrong. Are you saying that it isn’t?
Feminist pedophiles regularly support the “hot” female teachers who sexually abuse boys.
Citation and link, please.
Of course, we’re not talking about anyone having sex with anyone else, merely fantasy. Or, is this that nebulous “visual rape” that feminist gorgons like to rant about?
No – what we’re saying is that the way people think about other people (women, in this case) affects how they behave towards those people. When men think of women as sexual objects (note – not sexual SUBJECTS, but sexual objects to be rated and done to) it affects the way they behave towards and with women. Rther negatively. THAT is what we object to.
Feminists treat women as children.
No – feminists want men to treat women as people. Just because I can slap down (verbally or physically – though I prefer the former…) a man who bothers me, doesn’t mean I should have to. Also, feminists recognize that die to the nature of our society, women operate under a lot of pressures that sometimes do not give them the option to protest certain behaviors, and therefore must be protected from those behaviors.
Look up the definition of “fantasy” and then come back with your hysterics.
Hmm. “Hysterics.” Why and wherefore? other then as a general put-down of all things female, of course. If anyone is to be accused of overly emotional and unresonable discourse in this particular exchange – it’s you, my dear. Stanton and I are politely disagreeing while maintaining a perfectly civil tone.
As to your actual point (I think it is the actual point – you didn’t exactly explain yourself. More like “frothed at the mouth” with one-liners): what Max did went beyond “fantasy.” He didn’t have a pleasant daydream about a cute student, he RATED THEM ALL AND PUT IT DOWN ON PAPER. He actually thought about it, considered it, dedicated time and effort to creating the rating scale and seeing where each student fell on it. That’s a bit more then “fantasy.”
Amanda
You cannot make points that transcend the misandric culture we live in by turning to popular culture.
Popular culture is just a reflection of the Zeitgeists of our time, thus your reference to Buffy does not carry any weight.
And about feminists objectifying boys:
See “The beautiful boy” by Germaine Greer.
In typical feminist style she argues that our problems will be solved if we objectify boys and not girls.
Arwen: I’m not sure I’m hearing your point. I was drawing a parallel between two situations:
1. A doctor who has been encouraged through marketing to view Brand Name Drug P as superior to Brand Name Drug Q, and is subsequently more likely to choose BND P when s/he writes a prescription, and
2. A professor, who has encouraged him/herself through a looks-list to view Student A as more appealing than Student B, and is subsequently more likely to grade Student A higher on academic assignments.
I don’t know if situation #2 is true. I’m just saying that in light of research saying #1 happens routinely, even when doctors are consciously guarding against it, it’s sometthing to consider. It sounds like you think these situations are NOT parallel. OK; we disagree. Let me know if I missed something else you were saying.
The amount of projecting that this little anecdote has stirred up among some (not all) of the feminists here is astounding! Theocracygirl, your refusal to jump on the bandwagon and draw conclusions about Max, and even suggesting the possibility hat the man went to great lengths to ensure objectivity in grading, was impressive. Silly comparisons with marketing were made, attempting to ‘prove’ that Max was guilty of crimes against womankind – and Arwen wouldn’t let it get by. But most of the rest of the feminist commenters here are drawing unwarranted conclsions based on nothing more than indignation. Is this an example of feminist logic in action in the world?
Tefnut: You are addressing the wrong person.
And mythago, I guess this is one of those rare times we disappoint, eh? And counselor, you are assuming facts not in evidence, methinks.
Everyone divides everything into two regions: out there, the wide common world; here, the inside of your own head. “Max’s” only indictable offense was talking to you, Hugo, which ought to teach him never to do that any more. You and your fellow amateur psychologists may be dead correct about what’s going on inside the disaster area which is “Max’s” inner consciousness. You are free to disdain him, or even to make fun of him on the ‘nets. But to argue as you do that these wholly internal thoughts which you have inferred are somehow actionably “unethical” is going way too far. You may judge “Max’s” behavior in the common world but you have no standing to condemn what goes on only inside his head.
Stanton,
Sorry – you are correct. I meant “Taylor.”
Taylor – see my above comment mistakenly addressed to Stanton.
W. Kiernan,
You may judge “Max’s” behavior in the common world but you have no standing to condemn what goes on only inside his head.
Yes we do. We oppose racism, anti-semitism, and sexism, whether they are “expressed in the common world” or not – because it is impossible for someone to be prejudiced against a group of people and NOT have it “come out in the common world.” the only question is how overtly or covertly this happens.
Now, of course, not being the thought police, we can’t put a wo/man in prison for his/her thoughts….but we can definitely express social censure and firmly hold that such thoughts and their consequent behaviours are unacceptable.
All Tefnut has is a lot of projection. If these wymyn feel so inadequate, perhaps they belong in therapists’ offices rather that posting on blogs.
All Max did was to engage in fantasy. Poor feminists don’t like it. They want to censor thoughts, too!
The amount of projecting that this little anecdote has stirred up among some (not all) of the feminists here is astounding!…But most of the rest of the feminist commenters here are drawing unwarranted conclsions based on nothing more than indignation. Is this an example of feminist logic in action in the world?
Stanton, that’s all they have. They’re spending their time in speculation and demanding some sort of thought control.
Now, of course, not being the thought police, we can’t put a wo/man in prison for his/her thoughts….but we can definitely express social censure and firmly hold that such thoughts and their consequent behaviours are unacceptable.
And intelligent people can express social censure and firmly hold that feminism and its underlying beliefs are unacceptable. We can bash feminism into oblivion. Guess what, Tefnut? More of us are doing exactly that. You and your kind are hopelessly outgunned. We’re shining the light on feminism and showing it to be the absolute and ruinious garbage it really is. We’re also exposing male feminist sympathizers for what they are: opportunities who will do anything to score a piece of female ass.
Taylor, please don’t accuse people of wanting to police thoughts. Max went well beyond thought. He took his grading sheet, considered options for multiple weeks, and wrote down, in two different scales, the ways in which he objectified people for whom he had power over. That is not the same thing as sitting in a coffee shop, watching people go by and thinking, “That chick is hot!”
He is sexualizing in an arena where he should not, in any sort of ethical standard, be sexualizing anybody. He is sexualizing people in a format which is designed to keep his mind on the sexualization a)for long periods of time and b)when he should not be intentionally sexualizing anybody.
Let’s say you were a guy in Max’s class. Would you want him to ignore your question in favor of the hot chick two seats away? When you write the final essay, do you want Max to cut you less slack than the girl who wore tight t-shirts? (Or maybe she’s just the girl with naturally large breasts for whom t-shirts are all tight, to link this back to other threads.) Unless Max is going to some extreme lengths to keep from thinking about his ratings while he’s being a professor (which I find unlikely, beyond maybe covering names on essays before they’re corrected because he admits to watching the women in class in order to make his judgements) it is likely that anyone in his class who is not in the top whatever of his hotness scoring is going to be shortchanged.
Thoughts lead to actions, and it’s the great potential for the actions that I’m deploring.
And it’s Technocracy, not Theocracy. A techocracy is assuredly not anything I am in favor of. Of course, neither is a technocracy, really.
A little thought experiment for the MRA whingers, if you can manage it:
You are an 18 year old male in a mixed class. Your very gay, male professor, who fancies himself as a bit of a player, is grading you on your hotness.* He (gay, male and much much bigger than you are) sizes you and the other young men up every lesson throughout the term. Checking out your crotch, buttocks, biceps, clothing, imagining what he’d like to do do to you. He obsesses about this to the point of multicoloured charts in his grade-book. He also shares your grading with other big, lecherous gay male professors, who enjoy the chance to gawk at you in their classes too.
Acceptable ? Professional ? Nice environment to learn in ? I don’t think so. Yet women are expected to be on the receiving end of this sort of thing from men like it’s all just a bit of fun ?
(I know we won’t get an honest or genuinely thought-through answer from the trolls, but wanted to make the point anyway).
* Note: in reality the majority of gay teachers will, if anything, be more careful and decent than their hetero counterparts – the prospect of being “hit on” as described above by another man is something irrationally feared by the insecure male, in reality an extreme rarity, unlike the real and all too frequent abuse which is the actual reality of women’s experience.
Taylor has been banned, further comments from him will be deleted should he change his IP.
“he objectified people for whom he had power over”
What a disgustingly nebulous phrase. A nonsense for which punishment of an otherwise innocent man is being sought.
Are feminists really this crazy ?
therealUK wrote:“You are an 18 year old male in a mixed class. Your very gay, male professor, who fancies himself as a bit of a player, is grading you on your hotness.* He (gay, male and much much bigger than you are) sizes you and the other young men up every lesson throughout the term. Checking out your crotch, buttocks, biceps, clothing, imagining what he’d like to do do to you. He obsesses about this to the point of multicoloured charts in his grade-book. He also shares your grading with other big, lecherous gay male professors, who enjoy the chance to gawk at you in their classes too.”
Invalid comparison. There’s no objective proof that Max is “leching” over his students. For all we know, Max thinks “hot” girls are ditzy and/or bitches and if he adjusts grades at all (and we have no proof that he does) grades them down, not up.
stanton’s right, you all are engaging in a tremendous of projection.
“Acceptable ? Professional ? Nice environment to learn in ? I don’t think so. Yet women are expected to be on the receiving end of this sort of thing from men like it’s all just a bit of fun ?”
As long as the students don’t know of the ‘scale’ (written or not) and the instructor doesn’t let it affect her/his grading (e.g., Hugo doesn’t downgrade males in his WS classes even though he favors women) then there’s no way the students would have any idea that it’s being done and thus no hostile environment exists. Except perhaps in the minds of chronically paraniod and angry feminists, for whom no evidence of wrongdoing seems to be necessary in order to condemn a heterosexual man who dares not grovel about his het male status.
Great post, Hugo. Having said that, let me get right to disagreeing with you:
“Asserting” is the wrong word to refer to something done covertly. It’s not about asserting power and control; it’s about giving oneself a feeling of power and control. My guess is that Max feels a sense of helplessness and injustice, when he looks at all the pretty co-eds and knows that he can’t have them. If Max read the chapter in Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power about the “sexual power” of pretty women over men, I bet he’d be nodding agreement with every page.
Looking at pretty, untouchable women makes Max feel that they have power over him. Categorizing those women is a way for Max to feel in control – that he has the power over them.
I’ll take your word for it that Max is a nerd (or former nerd), but I think the generalization you’re making here is unjust, or at least in need of major qualification.
Joe Francis, the owner/creator of “Girls Gone Wild,” probably is not a nerd, and – judging from this LA Times article about Francis – certainly doesn’t lack for attention from young, conventionally attractive women. Yet he still carries around a hell of a lot of rage at women, which he expresses through misogynistic language, physical assault of women, (arguably) his choice of occupation, and – if the story of one young woman interviewed by the Times can be believed – rape . (Link via Amanda ).
I’ve met nerdy guys who are bitter that they haven’t gotten the sexual/romantic attention they feel entitled to from attractive women, just as you describe. (These guys are frequently the people collecting Gor novels). But the same sentiment is as common among jocks and “players,” too. For some guys, “success” at getting laid can increase their belief that they’re entitled to get laid.
In short, feelings of entitlement to sex from pretty women — and the accompanying anger at women for not recognizing that entitlement — isn’t a nerd phenomenon, and you’re mistaken to cast it that way. It’s a male phenomenon.
The way some feminists (here Amp) throw around the word ‘entitlement’ confuses me the hell out of me.
“I’ve met nerdy guys who are bitter that they haven’t gotten the sexual/romantic attention they feel entitled to from attractive women, just as you describe… In short, feelings of entitlement to sex from pretty women… [is] a male phenomenon.”
Can I just ask whether it’s possible that guys are bitter because they haven’t gotten sexual/romantic attention from attractive women, *but don’t feel that they are entitled to it*? I can’t help but feel that the accusation of ‘entitlement’ is just tacked on as a way to damn people for a feeling that we all feel in one way or another (wanting something and being pissed off we haven’t got it).
Ampersand said: “In short, feelings of entitlement to sex from pretty women — and the accompanying anger at women for not recognizing that entitlement — isn’t a nerd phenomenon, and you’re mistaken to cast it that way. It’s a male phenomenon.”
Complete, utter nonsense and sexist beyond excuse. You’re no better than those who remark that, e.g., violence, drug abuse, etc, aren’t a criminal phenomenon, they’re an African American phenomenon.
G*d, I need to go thoroughly wash off after reading Ampersand’s misinformed, hateful misandrist screed.
Two things:
First of all, I’m more appalled that Max would be so stupid as to share the list than I am that he made the list at all.
Also, Hugo, I went back and read your post about admitting your consensual relationships, etc. and making amends to the people involved. You mentioned getting in contact with your past partners and expressing your regret and so forth. I’m curious to know whether any of your former paramours said that no, on the contrary, they didn’t feel victimized and looked back on the experience positively as they aged. Just a question.
Ampersand
You are guessing here. There is no way you can know the real motivation behind “Mr Max” alleged behavior.
Like Hugo you are reducing all kinds of complex behaviour to fit your own Vulgar-Marxist ideas about how the world works.
Your folk-psychology is even worse than Hugos.
Let me try some reductionism on you so you can see how it fits:
Ampersand really has no real rational reasons for what he says or does, but simply is caused to do so by a feeling of inferiority.
Get it Ampersand? Does not work, right?
“Hateful, misandrist screed” has earned you, Mr. Bad, another ban. And Hans, you’re gone too for “no real rational reasons for what he says or does.” There are abundant MRA forums for you all…
Felagund, yes, that’s what some said. But their consent, even their enthusiasm, did not diminish the severity of the wrongdong involved.
Can I just ask whether it’s possible that guys are bitter because they haven’t gotten sexual/romantic attention from attractive women, *but don’t feel that they are entitled to it*?
I don’t see how. If they didn’t feel entitled, they’d just be sad, depressed, miserable, or resigned. Not bitter. You don’t get bitterness and resentment without a sense that injustice and wrongs have been done to you, that you deserved better.
I guess this is one of those rare times we disappoint, eh?
Not so much, stanton.
As for Max being stupid, it apparently didn’t cross his mind that anyone would consider his childish ratings sytem to be improper–and when Hugo did, Max reacted with defensive anger.
Again, Hugo, I have to think it’s a surfeit and not a dearth of self-regard that has to do with the vitriol guys like Max display against women. You’re being a bit too charitable, if you ask me.
Yes, perhaps Max is “stupid”. But his actions did not reach the depths of stupidity that I am seeing here. I’m not certain whether people here really don’t understand the unwarranted projecting they’re doing, or whether they do understand it, but consider the projections to be justified when a man touches off feminist outrage. I’m seeing either inexcusable ignorance, or something far worse.
The spate of bannings leaves me stunned, honestly. Taylor, perhaps I can understand, but Mr. Bad has been called far worse in this very discussion than anything he has said. And Hans? Jeez! I guess you are tailoring your blog to suit yourself, which is your right. I have no place in such a “forum”. It’s been fun, guys.
Bye.
Hans wrote:
Yes, that’s correct. That’s why my speculations about Max’s motives began with the words “My guess is…” – to indicate that I was guessing, rather than writing from certain knowledge.
To Stanton, et al.
Thank you that recognizing that a teacher rating thier 14 year olds based on thier sexual attractiveness is a BAD thing. That it is a SEXUAL thing. I am however exceedingly disturbed that making a list about 18 year olds without consent or awareness by a teacher/authority figure is okay because….you had sex with an 18 year old. Er?
To turn an old American complaint, the problem isn’t age, it is objectification without representation. Because it is LEGALLY possible to have sex with 18 year olds, is it then okay to continously engage in lists which rank them according to how desirable YOU think they are, while they are unaware of being an object of your sexual evaluation? What is the point of the list exactly? Masturbation? Bride selection? And why in your gut do we all KNOW it is wrong for say a 5th grade teacher to make a similar list about the little girls in his class but okay when they get a few years older. Because then it is no longer creepy, predatory and assumptively sexual. Not at all – but because he can’t be put in prison for it?
So, many men make these lists. Many men also don’t seem to understand the idea of personal limits, no means no or that an individual is just that, an individual entity, not walking masturbation tool. Stalking is legal in a lot of places as well, but telling me you follow women around to take photos when they don’t know about it for your “ranking system” isn’t going to convince me that you (or max) isn’t a creep of the highest order and a person who doesn’t, in his own mind, know the difference between respecting his students and using them for his own titilation. Or rather, whether he can be charged or penalized is secondary to the fact that he does not see the need to change, nor does he want to. Even it if became illegal, he expresses no remose, guilt or desire to seek another way of viewing the females in his class. That’s not thought crime, that’s callous indifference to potential outcome of the fragile young people in his charge.
FWIW, I’m actually sort of OK with random men whom I would never want to sleep with thinking about me when they masturbate. That’s between them and God; it’s not any form of injury to me.
Sharing sexual ratings of me in a professional or academic setting is another matter altogether.
And, if you’re going to be evaluating me professionally or academically, you really should be redirecting any sexual fantasies about me that cross your mind, to make it easier for yourself to keep your ratings properly professional.
So, many men make these lists:
So many of the other category of person do so too!
Many men also don’t seem to understand the idea of personal limits:
Same for the other category that doesnt understand this!
No means no or that an individual is just that,
an individual entity,not walking masturbation tool:
A mans no means just that too, he is not a walking ATM or a parasites vessel either!
Stalking is legal in a lot of places as well:
Do not stalk men either. Whats sauce for the goose…!
“”… You don’t get bitterness and resentment without a sense that injustice and wrongs have been done to you, that you deserved better.”"
Aha, can you see that only one category will be allowed to express their own bitterness but not others.
Who, because of officially recognised past injustice and wrongs is allowed to freely express bitterness to others who are not so allowed but must bottle theirs up?
Look at society. Look at this board.
Aha, can you see that only one category will be allowed to express their own bitterness but not others.
Men who are stalked or sexually harrassed by women are certainly entitled to be bitter about being stalked or sexually harrassed.
Why is this a hard idea to grok? Distilled to its essence, sans gendering, it comes down to this idea:
If you have a position of power over people, is it a good idea to sexualize them?
Politically, ethically, morally, I say no, it is not a good idea. Sexualizing those subordinate to you is using them for your pleasure without their permission and/or without their ability to say no. That’s definitely a hot button issue for me, which is probably why I’ve commented more than once on this topic
Politicially, it is a stupid idea to write down your sexualizations in a format where it is entirely possible that a disgruntled student can say, “Look, he thought I was ugly — that’s why I got a bad grade.” If you’re not tenured, even if the school says that you did nothing wrong, it’s not likely that you’ll be hired again. The school isn’t going to want to go through that drama more than once.
Way to use a Mr. Bad comment in your post, and then ban him.
Nobadges, I banned him for what he wrote subsequently.
Hugo,
Your blog, your privilege….but really, did you HAVE to ban Stanton and Taylor? we were having a lovely conversation in which they were accusing me and all feminist posters here of hysterics while frothing at the mouth and failing to raise a single coherent point (other then to admit that making such a list is indeed a sexually significant act).
I was enjoying myself…
Though I am merely a lurker (and therefore didn’t take part in the convo, except to laugh at the dishonest women-haters) I agree with Tefnut.
For all their goofy whining about the evil feminists not one of them managed to make a point that wasn’t guilty of exactly they were railing against us evil feminists for. They proved your point for you.
I understand that there is something to be said for letting folks hang themselves with their own petard — but I’d rather maintain a civil and friendly atmosphere here, even if I lose something in entertainment value.