Originally published October 2005. Seems appropriate to reprint in light of this post and the ensuing discussion.
Gosh, I’m now averaging two letters a week from folks who have found this blog by searching for information about “older men, younger women” on the ‘net. Usually, I get letters from young women who are attracted to older men, or older men defending their interest in younger women, but yesterday’s letter from “Charles” was different. Here’s some of it:
The experience I am going through is a difficult one. I was very closely
involved with a (now) 23 year old for four years. We broke up this past
spring, largely because she was going to attend graduate school in another
country for several years and had not been faithful to me in the past. No
trust meant no relationship anymore, despite my great affection toward her
and bond with her. We still remain friends and I look out for her best interests,
which is why I was so distraught to hear that a 35 year old had
asked her out at a bar and she said yes.
I agree with you that, despite exceptions to the rule, younger women
dating older men is not very healthy. She is a beautiful girl who has no
trouble finding dates, so its not like this is the only opportunity she
has. She doesn’t seem to find it to be a big deal and kind of flippantly
says that guys are five years less mature than their age and girls are
five years more mature, so the ages (in her mind) kind of equal out. But
I have to disagree with that. His formative, adult experiences are much
more developed than hers. If you use the age of 18 as a baseline for
‘adulthood,’ than he’s been an adult about four times longer than she has.
She also has had many of the problems that many young women interested in
older men seem to have, as you alluded to. Her father was almost
completely dysfunctional as a human being and was not a substantive part
of her childhood. She was raped at 13 to lose her virginity and she has
had a breathtaking number of sexual partners in an equally breathtaking
variety of ways, all of whom (with the exceptions of a few close
boyfriends) she didn’t like.
Should I not feel concerned for her? Should I not feel angry toward her?,
because I do. I do not have a problem with her dating and I want her to
be happy, but I am convinced this is not the way to achieve that
happiness.
Charles writes an interesting and heartfelt note, and it’s the sort of thing I’ve heard from other young men on this subject.
First off, there’s nothing wrong with being angry at someone who has cheated on you. Anger, particularly when it is expressed in healthy rather than destructive ways, is a normal response to injury. Once that anger festers into enduring resentment (and slut-shaming), however, it’s a good deal more problematic.
I’ve known quite a few men who share with Charles what can only be described as a powerful desire to “rescue” damsels in distress. The tell-tale signs of a man with a “knight in shining armor” complex are clear: he “looks out for her best interests”, and he expresses deep — and perhaps justified — anxiety about her early experiences and their impact on her subsequent sexual choices. I’m sure Charles is a very nice young man, and I wish him well. But ultimately, I think he’s having a difficult time separating genuine love and concern from a desire to control!
Many men in our culture find themselves drawn to the role of the Rescuer. With almost military precision, they seek out young women who are emotionally vulnerable and wounded, frequently with backgrounds of sexual abuse. These Rescuers (trust me, I went through this phase “back in the day”), are often men with pro-feminist leanings. They are often eager, as Charles seems to be, to protect women whom they imagine are desperately in need of protection. They are outraged at what other men have done (and may still be doing) to the young woman whom they love.
The Rescuer almost always imagines himself to be different from every other man. While other men (fathers, brothers, exes, strangers) have neglected, betrayed, and taken advantage of “his girl”, the Rescuer believes that he is radically different. In his mind, he doesn’t want to exploit her, he wants to save her. She is his noble cause; loving her (despite her often erratic and self-destructive behavior) helps him to maintain a heroic self-image. Only a very special and valiant man would put up with what he puts up with! Only a really good man could endure the heartache that he does, all for the sake of saving a young woman whom he imagines is incapable of saving herself.
There’s an obvious psychological payoff in this. Playing the part of the Rescuer, the Jungians tell us, connects men to a very old archetype: the Prince Charming, saving Sleeping Beauty (or Rapunzel, or Snow White, or Cinderella) from her captivity. It’s immensely flattering to one’s ego to think of oneself as the faithful Prince, the only one in the world who really sees the damsel in distress for who she truly is! In the modern age, the captivity of the princess is not a drugged sleep (but it may be drugs), and it is not a cage. The captivity is to a past of abuse, and often a present of promiscuity and addiction. Though we all can grieve the former and be concerned about the latter, the Rescuer, as it turns out, usually has a strongly puritanical streak. He is anxious to protect, but he is frequently very quick with the judgments. At the end of his letter, Charles writes:
Frankly, I would also be very ashamed that I went out with her and loved
her so much. For whatever this is worth, I think it is very trashy to go
out with an older man. I don’t respect older men who date younger women
and I don’t respect younger women who date older men.
Well, there’s a load of difference between seeing age-disparate relationships as frequently problematic, and seeing them as “trashy” (there’s the Rescuer’s slut-shaming puritanism emerging). Rescuers typically get very angry when, despite what they imagine to be their own extraordinary patience and selflessness, they fail in their goal of transforming the object of their affection. When she continues with her real (or imagined) self-destructive behavior, it invariably reveals the truth: the Rescuer’s rescuing didn’t work. That’s a heckuva blow to a fellow’s self-image, and that disappointment and hurt almost invariably manifests itself in rage (even when tempered with love) at the woman he loves.
Pro-feminist men, it turns out, often struggle with being Rescuers. Indeed, a great many of the pro-feminist men whom I’ve worked with have had to go through this particular stage in their own personal development. Some guys I meet doing anti-sexist work are still very much living out this fantasy. What attracts them to the work we do is the chance to be “different from all the other guys.” Rescuers, as I’ve said before, are often rightly frustrated by the way men treat women in our society. They often come to pro-feminist work because they’ve fallen in love with a woman who has been abused or raped, and they are eager to do something, anything, for her and for other women. That’s as good a reason as any to get involved, of course. But the danger is that these guys sometimes stay stuck in the Rescuer fantasy. They like feeling needed, and they like feeling unique — and often, adopting a pro-feminist guise feeds into that.
Usually, I am happy to say, most aspiring pro-feminist guys work through this need to rescue fairly quickly. The energy they once poured into saving a single damsel in distress now gets put into addressing broader societal problems. They lose the judgments and condemnations, and instead focus their passion on the movement. In their personal lives, they realize that they don’t need to sexualize and romanticize vulnerability and woundedness. They start to find strength, stability and independence to be appealing qualities in prospective partners. They let go of the “need to be needed”, and in due course, they get off their damned white horse and take off the heavy armor.
Pro-feminist men recognize that women are victimized in countless ways in our society. But they draw a clear and bright line between working to end sexism and abuse on the one hand, and eroticizing those who are still suffering the effects of that abuse on the other! Matching one’s language and one’s life means that our romantic and sexual choices reflect our deeply held values. And playing the part of the Rescuer, as enchanting as it is for some of us, is incompatible with authentic male feminism.
I have loads of empathy for Charles. I’ve been where he is. But as much as he doesn’t want to hear it, it’s time for him to let go of this woman he loves. It’s time to ask the hard questions about what he derives from being in relationship with someone so (apparently) fragile. It’s time to stop the judgment. And it’s time to take that love and concern for one woman, and translate it into working for a world where no woman or girl ever has to endure rape or abuse ever again.
“It’s time to stop the judgment.” Indeed. But by all means lets keep on judging Charles. It just feels too good to stop.
Yes, this post is appropriate given the discussion on the other post, because it nicely illustrates your contribution to the feminist movement. “Stepping on” other men is your role. Viewing a man’s expression of anger as dangerous, and casting an expression of concern as something to be viewed with jaundiced suspicion. By all means, pick over every single word until you find the crowd-pleasing nugget you need. The whole “Myth of Male Weakness” schtick has the same aim. Men are strong, so concerns for our feelings or safety are unwarranted. Men are strong, so we need no protection. Men are strong, so we merit harsh and unforgiving punishment if we yield to temptation. No, men aren’t weak at all – we have the strength of Devils.
Cynicism and suspicion are very natural emotions. But what is odd is that in your case, cynicism and suspicion are directed towards men alone. As I’ve said before, you really believe that women are a higher order of humanity. You would never, under any circumstances, write a post with an equivalent level of cynicism based on a letter from a woman about her boyfriend. Step up all you want, and step back whenever you can. But if you ever expressed this degree of cynicism about a particular woman’s unhappiness with a particular man – even just once – the feminists would step you out of town on a rail.
STF, really, what is your problem with Hugo? I mean, damn. I’ve never seen anyone so intent on criticizing a single individual. It’s not as if Hugo’s posts are very out of line with the rest of the feminist blogosphere. You will never see eye-to-eye with him, and probably not with any feminist. That’s OK, but move on, dude.
Vibram,
It is Hugo’s blog, and I’m sure when it is time to move on he’ll tell me. In the meantime he indulges my occasional points. You are wrong when you surmise that I’ll never see eye-to-eye with Hugo. I’ve been commenting for quite some time, and I have expressed agreement with Hugo on occasion. Just not recently.
Oh, I don’t have any personal problem with you, I agree with what you have to say as much as I do with Hugo. It just seems so counterproductive because you seem to have such different worldviews. But if I’m wrong, I apologize.
Sorry for the derail.
“The whole “Myth of Male Weakness†schtick has the same aim. Men are strong, so concerns for our feelings or safety are unwarranted. Men are strong, so we need no protection. Men are strong, so we merit harsh and unforgiving punishment if we yield to temptation. No, men aren’t weak at all – we have the strength of Devils.”
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth!
It’s not just men who do it, either. The Knight In Shining Armor shtick is also related to the feeling that “I can save him with my love,” which I know you’ve mentioned before, although I think your description of it here is much closer to my own experience of it. It may be something that most sensitive and thoughtful people go through at some point, a natural outgrowth of 1. I want you to be [happy/successful/virtuous], and 2. I know how to be [happy/successful/virtuous]. You may well see more men than women who believe #2 due to confidence variations, but that particular feeling of frustration when someone insists on “ruining their life” in spite of your good advice is not limited by gender one bit.
To me, the whole “myth of male weakness” is the way society portrays men to be and less of what feminists or pro feminists believe men to be. Why would feminists try so hard to get men to show the vulnerable side that we KNOW they have, yet refuse to show because of gender roles that are so strongly portrayed in media and society? Urging someone to examine their motivations and be introspective is in no way an attack on their character, if they feel their character is coming into question it may be that something needs to change.
When dealing with “nice guys” (as this post would similarly fall under) you have to remember basic psychology how one separates the ego and superego in order to compartmentalize and resulting in the ability to resist the urge to introspective criticism. In other words the ego is wishing to save the woman from other “bad” men, yet the superego can not fathom that one such man may even be himself, Hugo is pointing out the discrepancy in the fact that Charles had said relationships like the one she is having is “trashy”, yet this “hero” wants to save this “trashy” woman…it’s obvious that the thinking here is at odds and it’s because of the way the human mind works. Looking at what could be a negative trait that you possess is hard for anyone to fathom, and often very hurtful, but it is no reason to think that someone asking you to examine the motivations behind said behavior is purposely attacking you.
STF: Hey, as a group with so much privilege all over the place, ‘scuse me for finding it hard to squeeze up some sympathy for poor ol’ Charles there.
Although, actually, I related to Charles a great deal. Actually, I think the male Rescuer type is quite closely related to the “women’s love can save a man” trope. I’ve also been in Charles’ position, and I’ve also gotten mad at an ex for not letting me save him, so to speak.
And yeah, it’s a really shitty attitude to take to ones we supposedly care so deeply for.
Seeing as I have been stuck in this “Rescuer rut” for MANY years (I would say about 10) and have just been emerging, I must say this is one of the more refreshing pieces I have read in a while.
I do agree and understand the self-flogging components of this. I would admit there was one-part “puffing myself up as the only good guy out there,” but I also think there was another part you failed to explore. What about the small, nagging voice whispering “since you are a male, you must undergo this trial by fire,” thus saving her, as well as oneself.
I think you might have missed the undercurrent of self flagellation some men go through with these thought processes. Denying the thought of being a privileged male, this choice can be both an attempt to save a companion from the horrors of patriarchy while cleansing oneself from being a part of that which they hate.
I’m just saying.
Quick question: what if a woman is in a truly desperate situation, if she made a few stupid choices, but also caught some really tough breaks. She has figured out where she went wrong and how to stay away from the people who make the tough beaks happen, but it is a hard scrabble back into a decent life when you are doing it alone and without much money. So, a guy comes along who wants to help her. She says yes, even though it makes her feel a little guilty, because she is truly desperate. They have a romantic relationship, and she really likes the guy. But he also gives her what she needs, and she takes advantage of it to make her life begin working, to make changes that will significantly improve her life-chances. She works hard enough, that she can probably make a go of it without him.
Now, how does she thank him? How *does* a person go about repaying the person who saved her life, or who at least made it possible for her life to be something other than unbearable?
Now, what if they hit a rough patch? Maybe he just can’t shift out of the teacher-mode, or maybe they were just didn’t have as much as common as she thought. In any case, she is ready to move on. The question becomes: did she take advantage of a good guy? Did she prostitute herself for an education and a chance at a good life?
But even if they don’t hit a rough patch, there will always be that little power imbalance.
How long does a woman have to stay with the man who “rescued” her before her debt is paid?
Urging someone to examine their motivations and be introspective is in no way an attack on their character, if they feel their character is coming into question it may be that something needs to change.
It is if you do so based solely on what group the person belongs to. It means you judge the person based not on his individual character, but based on one’s caricature his group. We compartmentalize other people into larger groups in order to figure out how to associate with people in general. However, if we allow this to go too far we end up with a very narrow view that can lead to attacking the group rather than behavior. I think that was STF’s point, i.e. that Hugo does not say that people should not do these acts because they are harmful, but that men should not do these acts because when men do them they are harmful. As someone noted, these behaviors are not limited to men (one can argue that feminist attempts to “get” men to show their vulnerability is another example of “The Rescuer”). However, that is not apparent in Hugo’s post.
If you had read other posts by Hugo you would know he says the same thing of women who feel they can rescue the bad boy, and his most recent post that no adult should be responsible for another adult to “get better”. You only read what you want, and assume that Hugo is sexist.
If you have a problem with characterization of a group why don’t you blame socialization which widely enforces behaving a certain way based on one’s gender, instead you wish to attack Hugo’s character based on your notions of feminism…pot calling the kettle black?
Brian I agree with your post, but it should be noted that the guy in question when faced with the reality that this girl was not going to stick around for his good guy attitude, that he called what she was doing trashy, and possibly implying that she herself was trashy for participating in that relationship. What was his interest in her if he considered her shady past trashy, perhaps if he had a different outlook on it such as it just wasn’t meant to be, or they are not compatible instead of coming to the conclusion that all people who do that are trashy Hugo wouldn’t have made this post.
Toysoldier, it’s obvious you have no idea what I’m talking about when I say ego or superego or compartmentalization…it’s not about how you perceive others in relation to how you will act accordingly, its about how you perceive yourself on a deeper level than just cause and effect.
“If you had read other posts by Hugo you would know he says the same thing of women who feel they can rescue the bad boy, and his most recent post that no adult should be responsible for another adult to “get betterâ€. ”
Hugo does not say the same thing. When Hugo writes about women who try and rescue bad boys he is genuinely sympathetic, because society has encouraged an impossible and unrealistic wish in their hearts. He is never cynical about their motives, never accuses them of being selfish, and never warns of potential danger to these bad boys from an enraged failure to control. he does not search through woman’s letters to find a suspect word like “trashy” to demonstrate that prejudice is a fundamental part of their motivation.
Hugo does indeed criticize both men and women, but the nature of the criticism is very different. Men are criticized because of their selfishness, greed, immaturity and their will to power and control. Women are criticized because their efforts to recover from the harm society did to them are misguided. Men do evil because sin is intrinsic to their nature; women are never more than misguided and ineffective in their response to the evil that men do.
Hugo says otherwise (and we’ve discussed this at length), but in my view the weight of his writing demonstrates a view that men are a lower order of humanity than women.
Well, it is common knowledge that men and women act differently in social situations is it not? It’s not to say that one is better than the other, but should you respond to the social situations accordingly, or just bash everyone because they are all basically responding the wrong way?
Let’s take the girl who wants to save the bad boy, what is her typical reaction to her failed approach? In my experience she often whines about how she just can’t find a nice guy or sometimes that all the nice guys are taken or gay, to me she never once blames the bad boy for not being a nice guy or his inability to see how wonderful she is (given those statements I provided), but rather she recognizes to some extent her inability to find a nice guy, now whether or not she makes changes in herself in order to find a nice guy is up to her, she never blames it on the bad boy in which she is inevitably attracted to. Men on the other hand seem to take a different approach they blame the woman for not seeing how nice they are when the definition of nice is obviously different for both parties.
I’m not saying that there aren’t women who exist that take the approach of the why can’t he see I’m trying to help him, but that women when faced with unrequited love tend to tuck their tail between their legs and retreat to lick their wounds even if it is whining about how there aren’t good men(after all she recognizes the bad boy isn’t a good man, not that he couldn’t see the goodness in her)…the point is they retreat, they recoil from rejection, and soothe the needs of the psyche to avoid further damage. Women retreat because we are socialized to do so, men keep at it because they are socialized to do so, so while they may be whining about essentially the same thing they are socialized in such a manner to handle the situations differently. It’s not to say the rules are set in stone, but that’s the beauty of responding accordingly to each individual situation, your responses aren’t set in stone either, it seems your implying that Hugo should dole out the maximum sentence to everybody in order to be fair and not take it on a case by case basis. Perhaps he didn’t nitpick the girls words because there were no words to nitpick, maybe if you point out the horrible things that Hugo missed he can clarify or answer to your claims, that is after all the nature of discussion is it not?
I would also like to add that it seems your assumptions of Hugo are based on your perceptions of correct treatment which may or may not be warped (as perceptions as well as correct treatment are highly subjective in nature thus providing no basis of fact), it is better to base assumptions on fact (in this case the evidence of an email in which one can pick apart the true or false perceptions(subjective) of a given situation (fact)).
Also, if you would like to assert that Hugo isn’t publishing such letters from women in an effort to further his agenda, than I should expect you to come with evidence for such extraordinary claims of something I would deem to be on the border of a conspiracy theory.
STF, you claim that I argue: Men do evil because sin is intrinsic to their nature. Where have I said that?
If I believed in a doctrine of total male depravity, then I would argue that the myth of male weakness is established fact. But my whole point is that men can transcend their socialization, that biological maleness need be no barrier to empathy, to self-regulation, to a life of reflection and service and nurturing. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you radically misrepresent my position here. You’ve erected a straw Hugo with whom to do battle.
Hugo
I don’t claim you argue that – I claim that is the way you see the world, and that your writing illustrates that view. It is not dissimilar to your claim that the need to dominate and control sits beneath Charles’ seemingly benevolent concern. I do not claim you believe that men are only evil, but rather that men, and only men, have some evil in them.
I’m not surprised that you see the Myth of Male Weakness as a defense of men, and of their goodness. Most men see strength as an admirable and noble quality for a man to have. Many people see weakness as and shameful, so lots of people would see some claim that men are not weak as a defense of men. You use this claim as in: “I don’t believe that if society does this, or doesn’t do this, or if women do this, that men will do bad things! I know men are strong enough to do better!” “Women are not responsible for men’s actions. Men are strong enough to resist any conceivable temptation.” “women need to stop feeling all this responsibility, men are strong enough and good enough to fill in and stop complaining.”
The Myth always serves as an argument for doing less for men, and demanding more of them. Women need to do less for their male loved ones, not more. Men need less coddling of their egos, not more. We should be less forgiving towards men, not more forgiving. It would be a somewhat benign view except for some new avenues it opens. Your claim that men are not weak is a also claim it is only just and right to condemn them for their actions, because men are strong enough to merit no excuses when they do wrong to women. Still, relatively benign – it is only right to point out wrong, and to hold people accountable for what they do. Except that you make no such claim about women. Women have needs we are obligated to meet, and just claims on our attentions. When women do wrong they are not responsible, because any wrong they do always originates from men. Only men have the strength to be evil.
The very fact that you think men need to transcend something to feel empathy, or to live a life of nurturing and reflection tells me you see something fundamentally different in men’s nature. Call it socialization if you will. Or perhaps men, and men alone, have a fallen nature that calls you. Perhaps I am wrong and you see women as fallen too, but as a man you feel no call to guide them, and so you remain silent on the wrongs that women do to men. Even if you believe all of this or any of it. it is still unclear to me how promoting cynicism and suspicion of men serves your mission.
Sweating Through Fog, I think you have a lot of valid points, but I do have to disagree with something you say here:
I don’t agree that this POV is “relatively benign.” To understand why it’s not, you have to understand the important distinction between the moral evaluation of an individual and the moral evaluation of groups. Except in extreme situations (which create serious mental derangement), we need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. We do not give “Alan” a pass for committing assault even if he grew up in an impoverished household. So when the question is “What do we do about Alan assaulting his neighbor?” it’s perfectly appropriate to hold him accountable and incarcerate him and/or have him make restitution.
However, when you look at a society in which assault is common, approaches which focus on individual accountability obscure the social pressures which foster the violence (and typically are not very effective solutions). People generally become violent when they themselves have suffered violence, injustice, or exploitation; and/or when their important material and emotional needs are neglected. Trying to impose ‘individual accountability’ approaches as a means to correct societal problems is essentially a reactionary, right wing approach.
The observation that “men are weak” is not a “myth”, it’s an acknowledgment that men are human beings. Vulnerability is an inherent part of the human condition, and men have just as much right to be treated with respect despite their frailties as women do.
ballgame,
I think you generally right, and I particularly agree with your final paragraph.
As a fairly impartial third party, do I think that Hugo is a biased against men? Honestly, yeah, I do. A bit. And I think that any objective observer would agree with me. Certain faint patterns have been noted- women are never criticized from an individual moral standpoint, and the problems of men and women are always laid at the feet of men. I don’t condemn Hugo for this- everyone has flaws- but there it is. Do I think this mean he is a prejudiced bigot like STF and ballgame suggest? Of course not. I’ve never seen a blogger so willing to engage with commentators- even those who he clearly will never agree with- and so willing to rethink his worldviews (although, unfortunately, he is far more likely to reconsider if a non-conservative woman disgrees with him). Hugo clearly has great compassion for men- he writes about them almost as much as he discusses women’s issues.
NGH,
By no means do I believe that Hugo is a bigot – that is far too strong a word, especially since I see no hatred in him. Quite the contrary, I’ve noticed the same compassion you have.
I do agree with you in your praise of Hugo as someone willing to tolerate criticism.
“STF: Hey, as a group with so much privilege all over the place, ’scuse me for finding it hard to squeeze up some sympathy for poor ol’ Charles there.”
JHA, that is a stunning admission from you, that you realize you are a member of a privileged group, especially since the context menas that that group is gender. That is stunning and very encouraging. I hope more women begin to come to the same realization.
“Do I think this mean he is a prejudiced bigot like STF and ballgame suggest? Of course not.”
What it really means is that he is a White Knight himself, motivated by sympathy, protecting women from wicked, brutish men and our supposedly overweening power. Ultimately it’s based on Male Supremacy. Here we see the clear diffenrnece between sympathy and compassion.
Okay, fellas, you’ve made your point. Let’s leave this thread to those who are feminists or feminist allies, please.
Wow, this thread has been hijacked by some hardcore antifeminists… Hugo, I thought this was a great post.