A reader writes in from the East with a query. “Micah” is an undergraduate, taking a class on Gender Issues in the Workplace. He writes of a problem he has with his female professor and her reactionary views:
… in our discussion on sexual harassment, we got into a (I’m
shy to call it a discussion), on how woman’s clothing is partly to blame.
She took the position that women should dress more conservatively, and that
it’s their responsibility in this way to prevent sexual harassment. Her answer to my question “If we make this opinion the norm, doesn’t it negatively affect a woman’s ability to seek redress after being harassed, in that she as the victim is blamed?” was simply, “No”.
I don’t want to create an adversarial relationship with my professor, but at the same
time I’m frustrated at the message she’s sending to both men and women in the class. It’s awkward to be a male student trying to take a feminist stance with an anti-feminist female professor! I’m having trouble explaining my concerns, and am wondering if you could offer some insight into approaching the situation.
Certainly, Micah is in a difficult situation. Indeed, it’s frequently problematic for a male feminist to engage in an argument about gender justice with an avowedly anti-feminist woman. Most men who embrace feminism in a public way run into this particular pickle sooner or later, and it is made exponentially more challenging when the anti-feminist woman is an academic authority figure.
Despite the awkwardness, there are a couple of tacks that Micah can take if he’s willing. The best one, of course, is to challenge his professor’s low expectations of men. The notion that women are responsible for “inviting” harassment by the way they dress is rooted in the belief that male sexual desire is a problem that is women’s to manage. It’s the old myth of male weakness, a myth that suggests that those of us who are incarnate as males simply lack the capacity to control our urges. Therefore, it is women’s job to set boundaries and to “help us” overcome temptations that we are incapable of overcoming on our own. It’s a myth that’s damaging to women, but Micah can point out that it’s incredibly insulting to men.
To borrow a phrase of which conservatives are over-fond, it’s a variation on the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” It’s a complex bigotry to be sure, as the real victims of the myth of male weakness are not those presumed to be weak but those who are, because they are presumed to be morally strong, forced to assume the role of sexual gatekeepers. In the sexual harassment dynamic, the myth insults men by suggesting that all of the be-penised are knuckle-dragging, simple-minded thugs who would never get anything done at all if it weren’t for women’s careful encouragement and cajoling. The myth insults women by suggesting that while men’s sexual appetites are extraordinarily voracious and uncontrollable, women’s sexual desire either doesn’t exist at all or is so weak that it can be easily managed. (If a woman does experience intense desire, the myth suggests that there may be something wrong with her.) And above all, the myth holds women accountable for bad male behavior, forcing women to second-guess themselves endlessly while depriving men of something they desperately need, which is the chance to grow into kind, rational, self-soothing and self-controlled human beings.
Micah is right to be indignant in the face of the myth of male weakness. As a young male feminist, he is right to be furious at what sexual harassment does to women, and he is right to be exasperated at the pervasiveness of the belief that women somehow bring mistreatment on themselves through their behavior or their dress. He is certainly right, too, to be frustrated at what the dominant discourse about men, women, and harassment says about him and his fellow males. If he’s old enough to be in college, he probably already knows what it’s like to live as a relatively privileged American man: alternately coddled and feared, loathed and loved. If he pushes back — in a polite but robust way — against the damaging message his professor is sending, Micah will send a message to his classmates that not all of their male peers are willing to be complicit in the Great Lie. Whether he gains any traction with his prof is another question.
See more in the Modesty and Myth of Male Weakness categories.
It’s always risky arguing with a professor, but the follow-up to her “No” is “Why not?”
I’ve never understood why whether or not something is insulting or offensive should be seen as relevant to a discussion of whether or not it’s true. Hugo seems to mention it a lot with respect to the Myth of Male Weakness, and I’ve never really groked why.
Is he saying our actions reflect poorly on us, and so we should change them? Or that we have an undeservedly bad reputation that would should try and talk people into reflecting on, so they might see us differently, or what? (Sorry to speak about you in the third person Hugo, if you choose to answer.)
I would concede freely that putting the blame or the onus on women to protect themselves to the degree that they are held primarily responsible for whatever ills a man might choose to inflict on them based on their sex (from harassment all the way up to rape) is badly unfair and wrong to both sexes. What I don’t get is why either men or women are so consistently treated as a unitary class (men, in the context of this discussion), such that putting all responsibility on men will somehow make safe any and every space a woman might find herself in. Put another way: even if the “culture was changed”, the myth of male weakness was thoroughly discredited, men generally held each other accountable, and all the other things we want, it frankly just isn’t all that realistic to expect that there will nevermore be any man who will pose a threat of any of the above encompassed violations to a woman, even if it’s one man in a hundred thousand. Given that, how realistic is it to maintain that now, then, any time, women ought maintain no responsibility whatsoever to take any considerations towards protecting themselves from the above. It’s magical thinking to believe that men, as a group, could stop any and every instance of an offense against a woman.
Is he saying our actions reflect poorly on us, and so we should change them? Or that we have an undeservedly bad reputation that would should try and talk people into reflecting on, so they might see us differently, or what? (Sorry to speak about you in the third person Hugo, if you choose to answer.)
It’s not that we’re asking people to have a different opinion than the one that logically follows from experience, but, regarding the myth of male weakness, it’s somehow a woman’s responsibility not to be “tempting”, or that somehow women are responsible for taming a viscous male sexuality.
In this instance, I think the professor is in the wrong. I do think that carrying the notion that it is a woman’s responsibility to cover up and look out for those men that are just fundamentally programmed to harass. As well as it being offensive to men to be spreading the idea that men are in some way by definition rapists and harassers, in the same way that, if I were a woman, I would be offended if she was telling us that women shouldn’t be hired because they’re stupid and ruled by emotions. I don’t want to put words in your mouth Hugo, but I think that’s what we’re trying to get it.
“Responsibility” is such a revealing term in this context, because it shifts blame onto the victim: if you didn’t do X, Y or Z that successfully deflected an assault, it’s because you were irresponsible.
Nobody, not even Hugo, is saying that women (and men) should be blind to the reality of predators. But we don’t treat carjacking or bank robbery as something that’s inextricably part of men’s nature, and something that just can’t be helped or blamed, and so all you can do is “take responsibility” to try and get out of the way. We tell people in areas with a lot of carjacking to be alert and take precautions for their safety, but funnily, we don’t tell people who have been carjacked “What do you expect, driving a brand-new car?” or “It’s your own fault for not driving in a convoy.”
So it’s a false dilemma to claim that if we stop treating men as mindless rapists who must be stopped by woman’s virtue, then we have to stop teaching people how to recognize and perhaps protect themselves from predators. Gavin de Becker does this quite well in his books (like The Gift of Fear), and he does so without lecturing women about dressing ‘modestly’ or suggesting that men are stupid dick-driven beasts.
Hugo,
I’m a bit drunk right now, just coming home and I just left a woman who wasn’t conservatively dressed and expressed her dissatisfaction with my leaving by pouting her lips, kissing me, and instructing me to come to her party on Saturday. I’m not sure I’ll be going despite being almost positively certain she’d like to bed me, and that alone is, being a single male, sufficient evidence to contradict that alleged myth of male weakness. Men have brains. I know that because I have one, and that means I don’t always have to rely on my penis to make decisions for me. At this point, I don’t think I’d want sex with her, so I left. Not weakness, not strength. Just a personal decision.
That said, I don’t like the way you are framing your criticism of the alleged myth, because your invocation of male rationality seems to say that female behaviour doesn’t influence men at all. And that’s equally wrong. Of course I was influenced by the display of sexual interest by the woman I met tonight. Of course I was influenced by her decision to wear less than she wears for work. Of course all that does have an influence on my like on all the other men in the bar tonight, denying that is like denying gravity. BUT. Most men know how to deal with gravity in most circumstances.
I’d really love it if you could acknowledge from time to time that women can indeed have an arousing effect on men. Doesn’t mean we lose our minds, but it does mean that we need to deal with the consequences of their effect on us. And usually, we’re quite capable thereof.
Mythago, maybe you are breaking it down about right, particularly about the false dichotomy. PEOPLE are predatory, to some irreducible degree. My view is that there is no escaping this. It’s simply who we are, along with some other highly social species, ants are a good example: we prey upon each other. In fact, we constitute the only real predators that we have in the world.
I don’t say, about rape, sexual harassment, or any other way that men criminally assault women, that women are to BLAME. The men who do those things, whom we know do those things, are fucks. Jump on them with the hobnailed boots, socially, legally, in every way that we can, as far as I’m concerned. I wouldn’t for a moment make an excuse for a one of them, or hesitate to do what I could to see that they faced the full weight of the consequences of their choices, should I ever come across one or across anyone making an argument as to how what they do or how they see women is somehow OK.
Can we do that, and still accept that the human social world is an intrinsically dangerous place, where two-legged predators roam, despite the best intentions of the greater part of us, and that some caution and preparation for the times we run across those monsters is called for?
SamSeaborn,
I’d really love it if you could acknowledge from time to time that women can indeed have an arousing effect on men. Doesn’t mean we lose our minds, but it does mean that we need to deal with the consequences of their effect on us. And usually, we’re quite capable thereof.
I think that’s the POINT, though, and correct me if I’m wrong, Hugo, but the myth of male weakness says that you’re NOT quite capable thereof. That every time women have an arousing effect on men (which, let’s be honest, they can do with or without revealing clothes, so the idea of covering up to avoid attention is moot), you lose control and give into your animal urges and act like a complete moron, and that all of this is something you can’t change.
What Hugo says when he dismisses the myth is that men are NOT animals, men DO have brains and know how to use them and that even when turned on by a woman (who, again, can be arousing even if she’s wearing completely unrevealing clothes – the idea of covering up to look less arousing is just a misdirection) can decide that no, it’s not proper to grope or leer or catcall or otherwise sexually harass the object of their attention. And that it’s damn insulting to insist that men are not capable of this.
We already do. There is no constituency picketing self-defense classes, no organized feminist group arguing that we should not teach girls self-esteem to protect themselves from domestic violence.
The problem is that there is an extra layer of victim-blaming and excusing perpetrators of sexual assault that goes beyond “here are things that help against predators”. Most rapes are perpetrated by people who have at least an acquaintanceship with the victim, and yet most of the Don’t Get Raped lectures women get are about avoiding stranger rape. It’s as if we decided to stop children from accidentally setting fires by teaching them “Never bring a strong magnifying glass into bright sunlight” without ever mentioning that, perhaps, they shouldn’t play with matches or Mommy’s cigarette lighter.
And the ‘responsible’ has an additional patronizing fuck-you (which I assume you didn’t intend) because you don’t seem to have any idea of how pervasive concerns about rape are already to most women. If you lived in a high-crime area where burglary and car break-ins were a daily occurrence, and you were already doing everything you could think of to protect your home and property, how would you react to your friend from the low-crime, high-income suburb of Privileged Estates telling you that you need to “take responsibility” for protecting yourself from crime?
B has it exactly right. Arousal isn’t the problem. It’s what we do with it, and what we tell ourselves about the rights conveyed by that arousal, that is problematic.
Thank you. I get turned on by attractive people of both sexes all the time, and yet don’t presume that their style of dress is an invitation to harass them. If I can do this as a very hormonal and sensual 20 year-old woman, I don’t see why men can’t do the same.
B,
“And that it’s damn insulting to insist that men are not capable of this.”
I agree, but it’s also wrong to say that the female power to arouse cannot ever be provoking, cannot ever be *used* to provoke (by arousing), and that women do never bear any responsibility for provoking (if they do). They aren’t responsible for the guy’s actions if these are inappropriate, but they can certainly be responsible for tempting, in case of intentional miscommunication.
Sam, it’s not really controversial to suggest that some people (yes! even men! can you imagine?!) try to use their sexual attractiveness to others as a means of trying to gain power over others. I admit that’s not as fun as throwing around the idea of the vile temptress.
Sam, I’m not really sure where you’re going with that – if a woman is going out to a bar, and wears a low cut shirt because she wants to look sexy, that doesn’t somehow change anything that’s been mentioned. Men are still capable of deciding to not paw at her, because while the woman may want to attract attention, there’s no reason to assume she wants YOUR specific attention, or that she wants physical attention, or that she’ll like anyone at the bar enough to bother with any of them in the end. Or if she’s wearing this low cut shirt on a date because she wants her date to think she looks sexy, that still doesn’t lead to the conclusion that she wants to sleep with him that night, or for him to touch her at all, and the man can still exercise restraint and not move towards sex without consent from her. I mean, purposeful wearing of low cut shirt or not, you still have your brain in your head and all the reasoning skills it contains. Or are you talking about something else?
B,
yeah, the low cut skirt doesn’t change my head, but it certainly forces my head to deal with the low cut skirt on some level. My brain cannot ignore the presence of said low cut skirt and what it’s hiding. I may not rationally be interested, but I have to deal with it. And that is something she is doing to me in that moment, intentionally or not. She is having that impact on me whether I want it or not.
Now imagine I have a girlfriend and she comes over and sits on my lap telling me she’d like to take me home (similar story happened recently to a friend). She won’t leave after I tell her that I’m not available, but instead almost push her breasts into my face.
Now of course, if I fell for that, I’d be responsible for cheating, not she. But she’s be responsible for tempting, for even putting myself in the position of having to make a decision.
If Jessica Simpson walked past a group of male construction workers and one of them made an offensive comment about her behind, it would be the guy’s responsibility. But she would have provoked it by putting him in that position.
There are degrees of applicability. If Jessica decided to parade in front of the group of guys that would be a clearer case of provocation than wearing a low cut skirt in a bar.
But the principle is the same – we’re reponsible for OUR actions, individually. But we do have an impact on each other. And we should be aware that that impact can be called tempting, at times.
mythago,
well if it’s not controversial then it should not be a problem to asign responsibility for “trying to gain power over other by using ‘natural resources’”, should it? Yet I never read about that.
If Jessica Simpson walked past a group of male construction workers and one of them made an offensive comment about her behind, it would be the guy’s responsibility. But she would have provoked it by putting him in that position.
Wait a second here. I’m willing to agree that the woman who sits in your lap and pushes her breasts in your face after you’ve told her you have a girl friend is out of line – I can’t even imagine why that would be controversial. But Jessica Simpson has to get from place to place on her own two feet sometimes, just like the rest of us, and, just like the rest of us, she isn’t supplied in advance with maps telling her all the construction workers she needs to avoid (if that were even fair to ask of her). I’m not willing to concede that she provokes anyone, if all she’s doing is walking to where she needs to go, and where she needs to go happens to be on the other side of a construction site.
Because I’m sure as hell not going to concede that I was being provoking, on the occasions when walking about my daily business happened to wind up taking me past a group of men given to catcalls.
Yes, I sure hope that Sam had a typo in his Jessica Simpson remark, because it’s so breathtakingly asinine and hateful. Sam is usually wrong, but not THAT wrong.
“And that is something she is doing to me in that moment, intentionally or not. She is having that impact on me whether I want it or not.”
No.
She absolutely is not “doing that to you”. Unless she is intentionally trying to get your attention specifically, she is in no way responsible for your reactions. Even if a woman is intentionally trying to arouse you, she is still only ultimately responsible for her own behavior. She is not responsible for your behavior, or for your reaction. This also applies in the reverse (as in when a man is trying to get a woman’s attention or garner a sexual response).
No one can make you feel anything. Only you can determine how you will feel and how you will react to any given situation.
We are all each and everyone of us responsible for our own behaviors and our reactions.
Are you an adult or not?
“If Jessica Simpson walked past a group of male construction workers and one of them made an offensive comment about her behind, it would be the guy’s responsibility. But she would have provoked it by putting him in that position.”
So women provoke men simply by existing? How exactly am I bloody responsible if a man makes an offensive comment under any circumstance? How the hell am I provoking anything by simply existing?
“And we should be aware that that impact can be called tempting, at times.”
I am not responsible for men being “tempted” simply because I happen to be in the same area as they are. I can be completely naked and still not be responsible for a man being tempted by my body. MEN are responsible for men’s reactions and behavior.
This is not rocket science. Why not just come right out and call women evil sluts who just want to make life difficult for the men by not giving up the pussy? Your arguments are little other than a more academic portrayal of that exact sentiment.
Here’s another question for you, Sam:
If a woman walks by a man, and he drags her in an alleyway and rapes her, is she responsible for provoking that too? I fail to see any difference between the statement that women are somehow responsible for men making offensive comments and the statement that women are somehow responsible for men sexually assaulting us.
Faith,
“Even if a woman is intentionally trying to arouse you, she is still only ultimately responsible for her own behavior.”
Exactly. That’s what I am saying. She is responsible for her creating
“This also applies in the reverse”.
Of course. But that wasn’t ever questioned.
“No one can make you feel anything. Only you can determine how you will feel and how you will react to any given situation.”
I don’t think we can control our emotions like we can control our actions. I cannot determine how I will feel. I *can* (largely) determine how I will react.
“I am not responsible for men being “tempted†simply because I happen to be in the same area as they are.”
No, but you *could* be responsible for tempting. As you said – you are responsible for your own behaviour.
“Why not just come right out and call women evil sluts who just want to make life difficult for the men by not giving up the pussy?”
Because that’s bollocks.
Lynn,
“But Jessica Simpson has to get from place to place on her own two feet sometimes, just like the rest of us,”
Yeah, rereading what I wrote it doesn’t capture what situation I had in mind. It’s not just a typo, it’s misrepresenting what I tried to say (and thanks, Hugo, for giving me the benefit of the doubt in that respect, despite my ‘being wrong’
)
I was thinking of a movie-like setup of her parading in front of a group of leering guys, construction workers, sailors, etc. Not about her getting lost and passing a construction site. You are, of course, right to say that she’d not be provoking anyone by walking where she has to go, regardless of construction work going on. But, exaggerating to make it (hopefully) clear, if she intentionally stopped at a construction site, got out of her car and started doing aerobics in a tank top and hot pants, that would be different (and that was more of the thing I had in mind). Sorry for the confusion.
Without weighing in one way or another on the main topic, I do want to point out that this:
… is false. Unless you’re a sociopath, Faith, other people can certainly make you feel things, though I certainly agree with the thread’s consensus that we are responsible for how we behave.
I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say here, or even what “other than by using “natural resources”‘ means. Can you explain?
Because in addition to weirdly misquoting me, to make whatever point you’re trying to make here, you had to invent a bizarre and admittedly exaggerated scenario that’s quite different from what you first posted. You first posited Jessica Simpson merely walking past a group of male construction workers*, one of them making “an offensive comment about her behind”, and then blamed her for “provoking” the situation. Because, you know, such a sultry temptress doesn’t merely walk; she deliberately parades her tempting self to taunt the poor men, just as if she were doing sexy aerobics in front of them!
*I always love the classism of this particular stereotype. As if blue-collar men are all Neanderthal brutes who can’t help but grunt their approval of any female walking by, whereas white-collar men are always perfect gentlemen who would never say anything offensive in a lady’s presence. Anyone who really believes this has never been in a room with a bunch of drunk lawyers.
Mythago,
“You first posited Jessica Simpson merely walking past a group of male construction workers*, one of them making “an offensive comment about her behindâ€, and then blamed her for “provoking†the situation.”
yes, that’s what I wrote. I can only repeat that it is sloppy writing and I actually thought about deliberate parading. I’m not usually invoking this, but please note that English is not my native language.
As for the responsibility issue, it’s a tricky one. I’m not saying that an agent/e provocateur has responsibilty for the actions of the provoked, but that there should be a recognition of responisibility for provoking itself. And *that* I never read about despite the fact that temptation is one of the oldest stories of mankind. Of course it’s never easy to determine what actual temptation is and what not, but I think there should be a recognition thereof, irrespective of gender, and I do not have the feeling that this is a part of Hugo’s myth of male weakness discourse. And I think it should be a part thereof.
Mythago, I live in East Oakland, which has many burglaries and far worse, and am cognizant both of the precautions that entails as well as the ease with which anyone can too easily slip up at that or miscalculate and walk into a hazard. I’d be the last person to lay such a trip at the feet of someone who might have made one small, human miscalculation one time and suffered for it. And I would certainly agree, especially in this regard, that teaching some caution in the way of sizing up the people around you, whom you know and associate with, is probably a better and more important message than all the lectures about the dangers of strangers and dark alleys and what-not. This, by the way, I mean beyond just in dealing with the crime of rape. Most of the people whom I have known who became violent crime victims, including having been murdered, went that way in no small part because of who they had been spending their time with before the fact.
What gets me in this entire line of discourse about rape and sexual harassment is that it tends to get discussed and treated somewhat along the lines of the Susan Brownsmiller “what all men do to keep all women in fear” thesis, like it’s some sort of vast conspiracy we all cooked up in the locker room or something, rather than most often arising out of the typical mix of selfishness and stupidity that motivates most criminals. I concede that there is an unacceptable level of acceptance of and excuses being made for violence against women, something that the last couple of weeks following the Roman Polanski arrest has made pretty clear (and also has made clear that it’s not exclusively men willing to make such rationalizations). But there are many of us, I want to believe far more of us, who regard any sort of sexual assault, including in all of its various “grey”, “soft”, “not rape-rape” permutations, as the indefensible abomination that it is.
I find some of what has been said by others either confusing or simply wrong. I am a 58 year old man. The Only reactions I’m likely to get from others that I can imagine are: 1.) “Older” (but not old) White man, 2.) Scary – because male (and could be rapist – though perhaps not “prime suspect” because of age), or 3.) Harmless – because of Age.
Each of us may bring about interest/disinterest with fear/no fear in various others we encounter. The younger, female who may be perceived as “Sexy” (or not) should not need to hide her body to avoid whistles and/or other harassment. If she wants attention, her desires are not necessarily for me (or any other individual man).
Drawing an exact line as to what “looking at” is inappropriate may at times be difficult, however regardless of how “sexy” and “revealing” the other may appear to each of us, we have a responsibility to respect the other.
Years ago in Berkeley there were a number of individuals who deliberately confronted societal norms walking nude, alone in public. I recall seeing an attractive, 30′sish woman who appeared quite assertive and powerful. I believe a few men threw soft drink cups and similar from passing cars in some incidents related to some of these individuals, however the reactions from most men were different. It was certainly a different reaction from the “sexy outfit” situation.
In closing I would note that when I see “obvious hookers” in some areas, they deserve my respect – not catcalls or other harassment, though I can understand others confronting them trying to “clean up” their neighborhoods. Most of these women may Want Men – to “see them for what they are”- but they are also individual humans who deserve respect, just as you and I deserve. They are not asking to be harassed or raped! Thanks!
Please re-read this sentence and see if you find the massive contradiction therein as hilarious as I did.
Tom, discussing Susan Brownmiller is probably a subject for a whole different thread and I’m not sure what it has to do with what we’re talking about here.
Mythago,
sorry, no I don’t. Thanks for an explanation.
Sam, I know you know this, but I’ll play along. You angrily insist that while temptation is “one of the oldest stories of mankind” (not really, but let’s go with it), you’ve never, ever, EVER heard of the person doing the tempting…say, the temptress?….being “held responsible” for tempting.
I can’t actually believe you mean to say this with a straight face. You’re just pretty angry, it appears, that the teasing bitches are being let off the hook, whatever the hell “held responsible” is supposed to mean, and so you’re making ridiculous and overblown statements that you then have to roll back.
Mythago,
“Sam, I know you know this, but I’ll play along.”
I didn’t. And thanks.
“overblown statements that you then have to roll back.”
I can admit when I made a mistake. What I wrote above wasn’t what I intended to say, whether you believe it or not.
“you’ve never, ever, EVER heard of the person doing the tempting…say, the temptress?….being “held responsible†for tempting.”
here. On this blog.
“You’re just pretty angry, it appears, that the teasing bitches are being let off the hook,”
No, what I’d like to see is a recognition of the mutuality of impact we have on each other. Turn this around, forget about the low cut skirt for a moment…
There’s a pretty interesting thread about, well, “dating etiquette” and Schrödinger’s rapist on Kate Harding’s blog. I saw it late, and one of the first comments I saw when I had finished reading the post was about a female journalist who felt unsafe doing an interview in a closed bus and asked for consideration of the fact that, while doing an interview on the bus isn’t exactly a dangerous situation per se, some, many, women would like men to understand her uneasyness in this setting.
There’s nothing wrong per se with this setting, no one wants to do harm, and yet she feels uneasy about it. Everything goes well, so no harm done, except for that uneasyness, for her being forced to deal with the “what if” scenario.
An unusually sexy outfit (in any given environment – this is contextual. A low cut skirt may have the effect in the office, but not in a dance club) is like the interview in the bus. It’s perfectly fine in itself, but it is, at the same time, forcing the other party to deal with it and whatever personal issues may be attached to it.
So, maybe even “responsible” isn’t the right word. But I would like to – for once – read a recognition of the fact that some things and actions, low cut skirts, closed buses, may have an unintended effect on another person.
And just as it is, to a degree, my duty as a human being to not force a woman to have to deal with “what if”-thoughts by doing an interview in a closed bus, it is (to a degree) a woman’s duty to consider that she will force me to deal with her sexual signals whether she intends that or not.
Doesn’t mean she’s responsible for whatever I may do as a reaction to that signal, unintentional signal, non-signal, just like a well meaning rock star being is perfectly within his rights to ask a journalist to interview him in his tour bus and is not responsible for her feelings.
And while there is a moment to say, well, tough luck, deal with it on your own, there should also be an acknowledgment of a degree of mutual impact, and responsibility for each other. And that’s what I’d really like to read on this blog, in the given context.
Is this clearer?
“Unless you’re a sociopath, Faith, other people can certainly make you feel things, though I certainly agree with the thread’s consensus that we are responsible for how we behave.”
Nope. They sure can’t. I can’t prove it, of course. But people really can’t -make- you feel anything that you don’t want to feel. Almost all people -allow- other people to have an impact on our feelings, but no one can truly force you to feel something without your permission.
For instance, let’s say someone calls me a whorebag slutface (something which I have actually been called). I could get offended and upset by this. Most women would get offended and upset about this, I suspect. Or I could choose to recognize that the other person (in this case that it actually happened to me it was in fact a man) is the one with the problem not me, and that what other people think about me is really not any of my concern. I am not on this planet to please other people.
So, yes, I will state again: No one can -make- you feel anything without your permission.
“it is (to a degree) a woman’s duty to consider that she will force me to deal with her sexual signals whether she intends that or not.”
I can’t see any point in debating with you until you accept that women are not in any way responsible for you feeling something which they had no intention whatsoever of influencing you to feel.
There really isn’t anything else that needs to be said but this:
If a woman intentionally sends sexual signals, then she is, of course, responsible for her behavior (although she is still -not- responsible for your or any other man’s behavior). If a woman is not intentionally sending sexual signals, she is in absolutely no way responsible for anything because she isn’t -doing- anything to be responsible for. You can’t be responsible for something that you don’t do.
When a man who looks like Brad Pitt walks by me with his shirt off and his pants hanging so low I can see the outline of his pelvis and even some pubic hair, I don’t blame the man for the fact that I might find him appealing. I don’t go around telling men to be aware of the fact that they might inspire lust in me by parading their tight, half-naked bodies in front of me and to stop doing it, or to accept that they are in some way responsible for -my- reaction. Being bisexual, I also do not behave this way towards women, even though they are far more likely to inspire lust in me these days than a man.
How about you and the rest of the men on this planet who have such a difficulty with this particular issue extend the women of the world the same respect?
Faith,
“I don’t go around telling men to be aware of the fact that they might inspire lust in me by parading their tight, half-naked bodies in front of me and to stop doing it, or to accept that they are in some way responsible for -my- reaction”
have you even read what I’ve written? The Brad in your story *should* be aware of what he’s doing and that he *is* having an effect (inspiring lust, you’re having to deal with it, pleasurable or not) on you. He is *not* responsible for your reaction, which is how you deal with the effect (inspiring lust, pleasurable or not) he’s having on you. And the exact same thing is true with respect to women, just like you say. And that’s what I’ve said all along here.
Sam, I’m glad you’re holding “Brad” to the same standard that you’re holding your hypothetical women, but…it STILL doesn’t hold up.
“have you even read what I’ve written?”
Unfortunately.
“The Brad in your story *should* be aware of what he’s doing and that he *is* having an effect (inspiring lust, you’re having to deal with it, pleasurable or not) on you.”
Why should he be aware of it? If he isn’t responsible for my reaction, then what difference do you believe it makes?
And, more importantly, what do you think that he, or women, should do about it?
Sam, showing my age here, and god forbid, my Georgette Heyer literary tastes, but there was a time when a “well turned ankle” was sufficient to inspire lust…despite the neck to ground covering.
The point being…200 odd years ago…a flash of ankle, however unintentional, was considered a “sexual signal”…by men.
And at the risk of being pummeled here…I am pretty sure that if fashion went seriously retro…men would still believe it to be a woman’s duty to consider that she will force men to deal with her sexual signals, even an inadvertent ankle flash.
Faith,
“Unfortunately.”
How very kind.
“And, more importantly, what do you think that he, or women, should do about it?”
It’s not about doing something about it. It’s about a recognition that our actions, even inadvertendly do have an effect on other people. And that, even if we agree that some of those things are withing our proper realm of self-acutalization, our actions will affect other people. Naked Brad will, and so will a low cut shirt. And a whole lot of other issues. My point really was all along that while the origin of a sigal may not be considered responsible for a particular reaction, the origin still *is* the origin of said signal. And to the extent that is possible, there should be a recognition thereof.
ahunt,
in a sauna or on a nudist beach, full nudity is not considered sexual – all this is contextual. So, yes, sure. Ankles can be very sexy…
You miss the point, Sam.
It doesn’t matter what women do…extreme modesty is as “sexualized” as overt enticement. Do you really think that a pretty Amish girl would be exempt from harassment?
“I can’t help it. You drive me crazy” —– These were the most pathetic, weakest words I’ve ever heard spoken.
“I can’t help it. You drive me crazy” —– These words were the excuse offered for pushing me face down into the dirt and assaulting me.
“I can’t help it. You drive me crazy” —– I’ve heard these words from many men since then. I’d likely heard it before then as well, but probably didn’t notice it. But since, I’ve heard it over and over and over again. First kisses have been ruined by it. “I can’t help it. You drive me crazy.” Hugs, love, intimacy. It’s all been poisoned because of those words.
Some may say, “oh I’m so sorry that bad man ruined so many things for you” … but what made the bad man say it, what made him think to say it, is the very same thing that makes every man think to say it. The myth of uncontrollable lust is what ruined so many things for me. This professor is teaching the myth of uncontrollable lust, so IMO this professor is teaching rape.
“I can’t help it. You drive me crazy.” = “I am weak and stupid.”
And yes, I hope I’ve ruined this phrase for anyone reading this, and that you’ll never say it.
Um, Philos, I’m not sure if you’ve read my work — when I teach the “myth of male weakness” I’m teaching that it’s a MYTH that men can’t control themselves — not the opposite, which your otherwise brave comment implies. We’re on the same team, Philos. And I agree, “I can’t help it” doesn’t belong in an adult vocabulary.
I assumed Philos was talking about Micah’s professor.
Faith, I appreciate the straightforward way you address my comment and own up to your opinion. FTR, I categorically disagree with you. I think we can rationalize our emotions, repress them, and deny them (and we can, to a limited extent, make some choices about the way we view things, which can ultimately influence the way we feel) … but we can’t choose what to feel. I think the notion that we can choose our feelings is, in fact, a pathological notion that is, sadly, pretty deeply embedded in our culture, and I know that there are a fair number of otherwise reasonable and intelligent people like yourself who hold the same view as you.
“How very kind.”
I’m not here to be kind, nor am I under any obligation to be kind to you in discussions where my rights and well-being are potentially under attack. Civil, but not kind. If you want “kind”, you’re much more likely to receive kindness while sitting in a bar with me having a few drinks, or sitting at a table eating dinner. Discussions as serious as this one are not necessarily the place for “kind”.
“It’s not about doing something about it.”
I can’t see any reason that it’s important to have some type of awareness of other people’s reactions or feelings if we aren’t expected to -do- anything about them. If I’m sitting on a bus, do I really need to be aware that the Fundamentalist Christian sitting across from me is deeply offended because I’m wearing a “Vote Pro-Choice” t-shirt? Do I really need to be aware that the woman sitting beside me is freaking out because I have a gay pride rainbow sticker on my notebook and she’s severely homophobic? If I’m not obligated to change my behavior in order to appease people and make them more comfortable, then the only reason I can see for being aware of those people’s feelings in such a situation would be my own personal safety. Maybe the homophobic woman has a knife in her purse. Maybe the Christian might get off the bus and follow me home. And, maybe, if I walk down the street wearing a mini-skirt, some man might feel fully entitled to kidnap me and rape me.
But that’s also beside the point, really. I mean, do you honestly believe that woman don’t know that men get aroused by their appearance? How could women not know this with men like you constantly insisting on telling us?
“You miss the point, Sam.”
He does that.
Faith,
civil is fine
“If I’m not obligated to change my behavior in order to appease people and make them more comfortable,”
No, but being aware gives you the option to attempt that should you decide to want it. YOUR decision.
“I mean, do you honestly believe that woman don’t know that men get aroused by their appearance?”
Well then, use that knowledge wisely. Put yourself in the shoes of the other person and then decide whether your making a point or self-actualisation is worth making them uncomfortable. Again, all contextual and sometimes no one knows what triggers some people. But generally, that’s about it.
I mean is this kind of consideration really so difficult to get?
“No, but being aware gives you the option to attempt that should you decide to want it. YOUR decision. Well then, use that knowledge wisely. Put yourself in the shoes of the other person and then decide whether your making a point or self-actualisation is worth making them uncomfortable.”
I’m so done talking to you.
You can’t even seem to make up your mind. First you say women are responsible for men’s reactions. Then you backtrack and say that women aren’t responsible but that they should at least be aware, but that doesn’t mean that they should do anything. Now you’re back to sounding as if women -should- do something about their behavior, or do something simply for existing in a female body while surrounded by men.
It’s just unfuckingreal.
I am not going to alter my perfectly acceptable behavior, or appearance, just because some other people might be uncomfortable. Their discomfort is for them to deal with, not me.
So, maybe even “responsible†isn’t the right word.
No shit.
But I would like to – for once – read a recognition of the fact that some things and actions, low cut skirts, closed buses, may have an unintended effect on another person.
Geez, I wish I had my copy of The Art of Deception handy for page-cites, particularly the chapter on how you should never admit to being wrong. The last resort, when cornerned, is to claim that you intentionally chose an argument (which we can all ignore now) merely to illustrate a useful principle.
Nobody has argued that “some things and actions” cannot possibly have “an unintended effect on another person”. If you walk down the street wearing a Star Wars t-shirt, the schizophrenic homeless person who believes Mister Spock is real and sending him messages may decide that you are a messenger talking to him directly. Did your actions have an unintended effect on another person? Sure did.
What’s particularly hilarious is your earnest lecturing to women that we ought to be aware of how our choices may stir men to lust. Gosh, I’ve never heard that one before. No, no, it never, ever occurs to women that we need to be careful how we dress, lest some asshole mistake it as a personal come-on, or decide that we are either Too Prudish or Too Slutty if we don’t hit the sweet spot for approprite attire.
Did you really think about what you were saying before you said it?
I think that a point that’s being ignored is that the way we dress is a form of communication, like it or not.
It’s important in our society to be able to advertise things to people; for example, I was riding the subway, and across from me is sitting a 20-something couple, lots of piercings, dyed hair, all black clothing, black leather combat boots. I turn to them and say “are you going to see KMFDM this weekend?”, to which they answered, “hell yes!”
I was able to have a reasonable expectation that this would be their answer, whereas if they wore their appearance some other way, I would have a reasonable expectation that they would answer “Who?”.
It extends from sending messages about cultural or religious affiliation, to income level, even to sexual availability.
That being said, people don’t owe each other anything more than common courtesy; harassment is still harassment; a glance isn’t a stare. A low cut shirt might be an invitation for polite, possible sexual conversation, but it’s not a ‘grope me’, or ‘follow me home from work’ sign People still shouldn’t be assholes.
I don’t think anybody is ignoring this point. The problem is, as you note in your second paragraph, when the response to that communication is uniquely at least partly the responsible of the “sender” when it’s a woman and it’s about sex, as Sam is arguing.
Regarding your subway example, there’s a difference between interpreting the message (heavy-metal gear + there is a KMFDM concert this weekend) and acting on it, for example by making a comment. “Are you going to the concert” is a pretty neutral thing to say to a stranger, and if you are wrong (“No, we’re going to a Halloween party”) there are not really negative consequences for anybody. That’s quite a bit different from the assumption we’re talking about here, e.g. attractive outfit + being female, good-looking, and walking by a construction site = “responsible” if the communication received is “please comment on my ass” and the recipient then does so.
Well then, use that knowledge wisely. Put yourself in the shoes of the other person and then decide whether your making a point or self-actualisation is worth making them uncomfortable.
Sam, you don’t get it. Simply being a woman out in public is apparently sufficient to make others “uncomfortable”…and I am speaking from experience here.
Please tell me what signals a pair of faded jeans, flipflops, loose fitting tank top and a nursing bra send…and why a woman would be expected to consider those “signals” when appearing in public pushing a damn stroller?
Mythago,
responsibility for communicating does not equal being aware that communication does not necessarily need to be intended does not equal responsibility for result of communication does not equal recognition that communication was causal (does not equal “sole cause”) for possble action that occurs partly in response to communication.
Not sure that’s clearer myself.
“there’s a difference”
Sure there’s a difference. But that difference is the underlying knowledge about socially appropriateness.
ahunt, apparently before self-actualizing yourself by going out in public wearing a tank top and signaling your fertility by pushing a stroller, you should have stopped being such a selfish bitch and spend thirty seconds considering the following: “Is what I am doing really worth the chance that I will cause a stranger with an overblown sense of entitlement to decide I am sending the message ‘You are free to comment on my appearance and/or approach me for sexual favors’?” Because if you don’t, you know, you’re a selfish temptress.
ahunt,
“Please tell me what signals a pair of faded jeans, flipflops, loose fitting tank top and a nursing bra send…and why a woman would be expected to consider those “signals†when appearing in public pushing a damn stroller?”
I’d say her outfit would mean – “trying to be comfortable while taking care of my baby, and, really, I’m not intentionally looking for a new daddy for my kid.” She’d probbaly also be aware that pushing a stroller will likely have the effect of making other people, more likely women than men, comment on her baby.
Heh…Ya think, Sam? And yet…