Thursday, November 3, 2011

If you want to talk about "slut shaming" . . .

There are certain things that enrage me. Rape apologists and "slut shaming" are right up there, toward the very top of the list. Get a load of this:
When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.
The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.
She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. Yet her display is bound to be noticed by hundreds of men in whom she has no conceivable romantic interest.
That crap is from a post by a Giovanni Dannato, titled "Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men."  You know what? I have "powerful biological urges," this is true, and if a woman I find attractive is dressed in whatever way I find sexy, it's hard to ignore. But so what? Part of puberty was learning a little self-control. The woman isn't responsible for my control. And speaking of control:
There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. The rationale:
  • It’s a distraction to the entire class.
  • The goodies are blatantly advertised without any possibility of fulfilling the promise of the advertisement for everyone.
  • It’s considered impolite to show off what you don’t intend to share.
Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.
We're not children. Even the teenagers going through puberty aren't children. Children DO often have issues with control, and boundaries, and understanding things like "It's mine, not yours." Adults should not. Oh, and women are not products. They are not billboards showing off their goods, they're people.

These feminists and manginas completely miss the point and resort to a straw man. They suppose that their critics believe it should be illegal for women to dress provocatively! They fail to understand that the rule of law is hardly the only set of rules that binds us.
Somehow, they are unable to understand that women exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon. They publicly and proudly demonstrate callous disregard towards others without the faintest understanding that common courtesy is a two-way street…
 "An act of aggression"???? Are you kidding me!? Ok, look. I am not harmed by seeing a sexy woman, and not getting to touch her. Not even a tiny bit. I rather enjoy it, actually. So that's a pretty damned ineffectual weapon women apparently have.
When I studied abroad in Latin America during college, I was in a group of students from my school that consisted mostly of spoiled women. They would insist on going out in low cut tops and become outraged when local men started catcalling at them.
Rather than sharing their sense of righteous indignation, I found myself hiding a smile. It didn’t take me long to understand that tastefully dressed women never received catcalls. This sort of behavior was reserved for women who broke their side of the social contract.
They became enraged by the catcalls because those men were treating them as objects, and not people. They became enraged because those asshole men were assuming that women dressing a certain way meant the men could act a certain way, when there is no social contract specifying any such bullshit. As for your "tastefully dressed women," at one of my previous jobs there was a young woman who never once -that I recall- had a low-cut top, or dressed in any way that sane people might consider "provocative." Jeans and work appropriate shirts. She wasn't supermodel material by modern standards, had a little weight "problem" (as in, her doctor might have cared, but I didn't), but every time I saw her walking around I couldn't help but be immensely attracted to her. Why? Attitude, and sheer confidence. It practically radiated off of her. I loved it. No other woman there could draw my eye like that, and there were plenty in low-cut tops. I chatted with her a few times, found out she had a fiance, and chatted some more. Never once flirted, but always enjoyed her company, and remained extremely attracted to her. Still am just thinking about her. What's my point? Simple: how the fuck do you propose she should have avoided that? Answer: she shouldn't, and couldn't. Well, ok, she could have worn a burqa, and stayed at home where I couldn't see her, but hey, you know what? That would have been bloody stupid, and insulting to me. I was not harmed by her presence, I loved it. And it's not her job to control me, it's mine.
Catcalling, I realized, was a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only. Feminists and their defenders have a special place in their hearts for this sort of retaliation. They are reminded of horrible days of yore when Western women actually had social responsibilities – when even ‘loser’ males they considered beneath them could resort to public shaming when pushed too far.
Present first world societies allow men no defense whatsoever against predatory and false female advertising. In every social venue, women are free to treat men as they like and should males reciprocate their wanton sexual displays with similarly crude and aggressive behavior, it’s called ‘sexual harassment.’
"Lower status . . ."? "Defense. . . "?? "Predatory . . . "???

First, let me repeat: women are not billboards, they're people! Second, what lower status? Money? Yeah, sure, some people seek out the rich for partners, but most just want people they're compatible with (I was dirt poor when my very sexy wife met me, and she didn't seem to care). Socially lower status? Take a look at not just some history, but the modern world. Men STILL have more social and economic power than women.

Third, what harm are you seeing that you require defense from these "predatory" women? Because honestly, if you can't just enjoy their company as fellow people, and enjoy being able to admire beauty when you see it, the one with the problem is you. Not them. And you need to get over yourself.
Thus men are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. If someone's harassing us, we've got the same options as a woman to address it. Women are not responsible for your reactions just because they're in your field of vision. If you don't want to see them, I recommend a monastery of all men, high in the mountains somewhere, preferably with no internet connection.
Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.
Maybe they just expect better of us. I know I do.
For those who would doubt for a moment that these women know exactly what they’re doing, let’s take a look a recent events. How do Western women collectively respond when some male displeases them?
In the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.
They call it a ‘SlutWalk.’ 
No, that's how they react when there's a culture that thinks how a woman dresses dictates how men can treat her. It's called a "rape culture," and it's perpetrated by crap like this. They are making a very key point that it doesn't matter how she dresses, YOU still need to control yourself, and not try to control her. You still need to recognize her humanity, her personhood, and her right to not be controlled by men.

In other words, Grow Up.

13 comments:

  1. Well said. I wish I could understand where such hatred for half the world's population comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not exactly sure, O anonymous person. In this particular case, I wonder if part of it is just not wanting to exert control over himself. He may be capable, but doesn't want to, and resents the people he thinks are making him do it.

    On the other hand, I don't think hatred always enters into it. I think in some cases the way women are looked at as inferior just doesn't allow hatred to make sense even emotionally. It's like . . . I don't hate dogs, and I rather like the dog I have, but I'm not going to let him run my house or have a say in how the house is run. I think some men look at women that way, and I think that's the ultimate in dehumanization. It's disgusting.

    Other possibilities that don't include hatred might include religious doctrine that tells them women are inferior and have a certain place that happens to be below men, and despite liking women and maybe not quite seeing what it is that makes them inferior, it's doctrine that they genuinely and honestly believe. And in that case, they are genuinely and honestly WRONG.

    Or, maybe they just can't see how someone who looks so different from them, and often acts so different from them, can really be just like them in sufficiently meaningful ways. In which case, they're confused blind fucking idiots who aren't seeing that the similarities outweigh the differences, and any differences are on a continuum anyway in which individual men and women can be all over the map.

    But yea, sometimes hatred really is just the answer, and I'm not sure where it comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When people talk about instincts and natural desires, I'm driven to say "It's natural to pee & poop wherever you happen to be when the impulse is felt,right? And yet most of us older than three manage to wait until we find a toilet."

    Language such as this fellow uses indicates considerable lot of sexual guilt and frustration. (The "strapped down, gagged, and muzzled" imagery is one example among many of BDSM langauge.) He has sexual needs that he's not meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It's natural to pee & poop wherever you happen to be when the impulse is felt,right? And yet most of us older than three manage to wait until we find a toilet."

    I like that. Can I steal that? That's good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They're MRA's (Men's Rights Activists) and this is nothing... On other occasions they've cheered mass murderers, men who kill their ex wives, they frequently mock rape victims, and talk about an impending gender war in which men will be the victors and put those awful women back in their rightful place (that would be the kitchen, i guess). They are a hate group and I hope they are exposed and mocked for their ridiculous beliefs (women are bad and so are gays and socialists, etc, let's get em!). Thanks for your article, it was much more pleasant to read than that terrible article on inmalafide (which I thought was a joke at first, being so stupid and all).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yea, I'm aware this only scratches the surface of MRA bullshit. But this is what I came across, and it's what got my blood boiling.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh okay so you're already well aware of their general batshit insane views on, well, everything. I think your point about the woman at your previous job was a very good one. One mans preference might be another man's turnoff but the way the article was worded sounded like 'men as a whole have decided what a slut looks like and these are the rules in which to interact with these sluts', which of course makes no sense (especially if you take into account changing fashion trends and climate), perhaps that above the knee skirt is the only thing she can wear comfortably on a stinking hot day... It's more than likely that she put the skirt on because wearing pants would be uncomfortable in that situation, not because she wanted to attract a rich guy (or something)... I also found that last bit about slutwalk hilarious, I had no idea it was really about mocking men!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I also found that last bit about slutwalk hilarious, I had no idea it was really about mocking men!"

    You didn't?? Golly gee, I thought everyone knew that! I feel so very mocked by it indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Tumberg,

    I have gotten back to you in the thread where you posted your link:

    Like many other commenters on my article, you presuppose

    unavoidable instinct = uncontrollably acting on instinct.

    This supposition underlies your main objections which hinge upon:

    Male sexual desire = unrestrained male sexual behavior.

    or to reframe it in other terms

    Desire to pee and poop = peeing and pooping on the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am going to yield a couple points to him. It is rude to dress provocatively in many situations, for any gender, because it can be a distraction. Some women do (by their own admission) attempt to use sex as a means to power, and dressing in certain ways is part of that. More than one woman I know has referred to her breasts as "power" and we used to joke around that some women had the super-power of "breastatude". There is a particular reality here that shouldn't be ignored in the name of ideology (however sound).

    Now for more reality:

    I was called a "distraction" to fellow male students while wearing blue-jeans and T-shirt.

    You made good points about how a women should be able to dress how she feels comfortable without being objectified and harassed. However, the real complete and utter LIE that hasn't been exposed yet is that it doesn't matter how the f*ck you dress.

    His assertion that the only women who received cat-calls (which, by the way, Giovanni, is a BEHAVIOR!) were the ones wearing low-cut tops (whatever low-cut means), is complete and utter delusion.

    If only he knew how many times my "fine ass" was pointed out to me - while wearing a buttoned up jacket. (To be completely frank, that really doesn't bother me that much - but hey - depends on how it's said and in what context.)

    What upsets me greatly about his post is that through EVERYTHING he writes, it's obvious that in his world the only power or status a woman has or desires is what a man GIVES TO HER. She is trying to nab a rich guy and she is trying to get men to do what she wants. As someone with two masters' degrees who worked at a government research facility and is a faculty member, and makes her own damn money - he can kiss that ass that keeps getting complimented.

    This is why when women consider their sexuality "power" and their body parts "weapons" - I correct them. When they use that sort of tactic, they do NOT gain respect and all they do is perpetuate an inherently subordinate pathological gender relationship...and when they invariably call me "ugly" and "asexual" it just brings the point home.

    The whole attitude is just so painfully typical. When some men are attracted to women, it makes them angry because they aren't getting what they want. Funny he uses children looking at sweets as an analogy - because yeah, I don't doubt for a minute that is exactly what this experience is like for him. We've all felt that way, if we are honest with ourselves. However, we're adults so we deal with it and we do our best to treat everyone with respect despite our petty jealousies or unrequited desires.

    If we demonize "unavoidable instincts" as being inherently bad and place the responsibility of avoiding those thought and desires on women; we are absolutely necessarily placing responsibility on women for how men may ACT on those desires. It just follows. If you think women are responsible for how you feel, how can they not be held responsible for how you act on those feelings?

    The best concept of the hijab, is that it is a dignified way of dressing and attempts to avoid the pathological sexualization of women that some Western women counter-productively attempt to "use to their advantage". I can respect that to some degree.

    However, at it's worst it is simply a means of control and a fatalistic devaluation of men as mindless sex-controlled flies attracted to sweet candy. http://sarahstil.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/the-veil-the-street-and-lollipop-advertisments/

    ReplyDelete
  11. I write with an awareness of human biological imperatives.

    For men, these are signs of fertility.

    For women, ability to provide and social dominance.

    Once again, you should not equate an awareness of basic instincts with acting on them without inhibition.

    I'm aware that plenty if not most women now provide for themselves.

    I do not perceive consideration for men as a burden on women.
    I see it as a responsibility that comes with female power. This is the responsibility to not abuse this power.

    I will state again:
    I am not lobbying for legal restrictions on dress.
    Rather, I am pointing out how common courtesy is a two way street that requires cooperation from both parties.
    Therefore, women who use their sexual power as a weapon cannot expect courteous behavior in return for defecting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Posted on Giovanni's blog post (among other comments):

    I think it would be counterproductive to bicker about how prevalent the dynamics that you are describing are, or what the legal ramifications are when various actions are made within the dynamic – because obviously that’s going to vary from place to place. However, it would be nice if you would concede that, although some environments are prone to be hyper-sensitive to how men treat women (but not how women treat men); other environments exists where there is no sensitivity what-so-ever to the point where serious harassment is not just permitted but encouraged, and women who have experienced harassment and assault are marginalized, blamed, and sometime even killed. I have more experience and knowledge of the latter, and it seems you have more experience of the former. Both environments are characterized by poisonous gender inequity and dysfunctional relationships and I hope we can both agree that neither of these situations are good.

    We also see the sexualization of women from different perspectives, but seem to agree that women presenting themselves as sexual objects for social gain is bad (we may differ on what specific clothing choices and action constitute this, but it may be helpful to put that aside).

    The original post presents this dynamic as completely created by women, for the benefit of women – with men being complete, helpless victims of the dynamic and women being the winners. I would like to present the idea that both parties are harmed by it.

    I hope we can also agree that, regardless of what a woman wears, those around her are responsible for how they act toward her. I suspect you have been accuse of believing that she is responsible, because you are putting so much responsibility on the woman for how a man reacts emotionally (as I did), but also simply because unfortunately, blaming women for the actions of men, is a popular and pervasive view held by people who admit that is their stance as well as those who deny it, but still act on that view in ways that are unconscionably harmful to girls and women while denying the culpability of boys and men for their own behavior. I will take you at your word that this is not you.

    While your post makes a line between how men and women are actors in this dynamics, I would like to provide a substitute model where there are still two distinct groups within this dynamic, but they are not based on gender. There are those who perpetuate this dynamic, and those that don’t.

    As I said before, I do no doubt there are women who use their bodies the way you imagine them to; and men who feel dis-empowered to stand up to the dynamic. However, there also exists men who encourage this dynamic because it devalues women as objects – as things whose purpose is to provide them with “eye-candy” and prance around for their pleasure; and women who feel dis-empowered to stand up to the dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. continued....

    How do you think women are treated who see make-up as the gender equivalent to black-face and high-heels as torture? We obviously don’t know how to “play the game” – are sex-less ugly and jealous. However, what we really want is for others to stop obsessing about our appearance and relate to us as human beings. When you are in an environment where sexualizing yourself for the pleasure of “the man” is the socially acceptable means of getting what you want; using your body is not a weapon against “the man” it is playing his game. It isn’t the men who are necessarily fighting amongst themselves to gain the favor of the female; but the females fighting against one another to gain the favor of the men in power.

    Men who benefit from this dynamic (and women delusional enough to think they do) will mercilessly attack anyone who attempts to change it. I absolutely agree that this dynamic is mired in class distinctions and shouldn’t be tolerated; but I think we differ in how we view the dynamic and who we think benefits from it, simply because of our perspective. So, we also differ on what appropriate responses to this dynamic are.

    ReplyDelete