Feminism and male aggressiveness
Aug. 23rd, 2003 02:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayIn a separate conversation offline with a friend, I've talked about the seeming incompatibility of feminism and male assertiveness... I'm repeating some of my thoughts in my journal.
I was raised in Georgia, in the 1960s-70s... my parents taught me to be polite, to try to be considerate of others, and to try to help those in need. Combined with prevailing social attitudes and examples of schoolgirl silliness, this led me to regard girls/women my age as fragile, emotional creatures subject to exploitation by a subset of scheming males. When I went away to college, these attitudes were altered -- women could be tough and hold their own. But a 5:1 student ratio meant that they were often still badgered. I embraced feminism, in the sense that "women are people too", capable of the same accomplishments, achievements, flaws, foibles and having the same rights as males. So women were treated as intellectual equals... but I still held doors for them, as a kind of courtesy. Or just a habit.
I still felt obliged to warn and protect women in danger, as I saw it... but as a public service. The upshot was that at college social events, I saw one guy in particular who seemed to treat women as objects, disposable... he'd entice one this week, two weeks later he'd be pursuing someone else, and on amd on. He bragged about his 200+ conquests. We were in the same service fraternity. I couldn't watch the annoyed women-left-behind and not do something... so I started warning women away from him. "Watch out for X, he goes through a lot of girlfriends, uses them and leaves them." I finally confronted him personally... "how can you treat other people so shabbily? Like toys? " His response was that why not, and his partners seemed to enjoy it at the time, and those who expected commitment were just bringing in their own expectations. I was incensed. "I'll have my fun, they can take care of themselves" was not being considerate of others.
(Later, he and I became close friends, and he was actually the best man atpatgreene and I's wedding. Different story.)
My combined upbringing and feminism led me to conclude that women should be equals -- not used as toys or objects. I viewed male aggression, hitting on women, as vestigally patriarchal and boorish. IMO, relations between men and women should be coolly negotiated as equals and partners, with the given woman showing equal initiative and interest. From this viewpoint, men being assertive or dominant was tantamount to abuse, or embracing the old patriarchal system that kept women in their place. Women deserved to be equals and partners, not objects or subservient. Treated with respect, not used for one's pleasure, or groped. Men who acted in "the old ways" towards women were uneducated, were jerks, or reactionary.
If the old dominant cultural paradigm said that submissiveness was expected of women, and dominance of men.. then subvert it! Mix-and-match.
That's where I was, 10-15 years ago.
My operating theory used to be that anyone or anything which placed a woman in a submissive or passive role was being inherently abusive. And I consequently shunned being friends with any other men whom I saw acting assertively around women. Any momentary impulses I had myself in that direction were squelched.
But the theory hasn't fit reality... there appeared to be women who *enjoyed* being submissive, in a negotiated, safe set of boundaries. And men who were assertive without otherwise being a**holes. Life is yet more complicated.
But, okay, given that there exist comfortably-passive women and comfortably-dominating men, how does that correlate with personal equality? Or the interpersonal respect and consideration that is at the foundation of politeness, arguably civilization?
All I can figure thus far is that if roles and approaches are negotiated, are safe, and are freely agreed without coercion, then it isn't really submission by women, because they could choose to renegotiate or even reverse roles. It isn't "forced". Closer to role-playing. As long as it is their choice, then individual rights are being respected. And the converse would hold for men...
Still, it's a reach for me... certain protective reactions still surface when I see what appears to be exploitation or abuse of someone. It is hard to convince myself. And I still feel uneasy about being assertive towards women myself, as if to indicate interest was to make myself a threat, somehow.
I was raised in Georgia, in the 1960s-70s... my parents taught me to be polite, to try to be considerate of others, and to try to help those in need. Combined with prevailing social attitudes and examples of schoolgirl silliness, this led me to regard girls/women my age as fragile, emotional creatures subject to exploitation by a subset of scheming males. When I went away to college, these attitudes were altered -- women could be tough and hold their own. But a 5:1 student ratio meant that they were often still badgered. I embraced feminism, in the sense that "women are people too", capable of the same accomplishments, achievements, flaws, foibles and having the same rights as males. So women were treated as intellectual equals... but I still held doors for them, as a kind of courtesy. Or just a habit.
I still felt obliged to warn and protect women in danger, as I saw it... but as a public service. The upshot was that at college social events, I saw one guy in particular who seemed to treat women as objects, disposable... he'd entice one this week, two weeks later he'd be pursuing someone else, and on amd on. He bragged about his 200+ conquests. We were in the same service fraternity. I couldn't watch the annoyed women-left-behind and not do something... so I started warning women away from him. "Watch out for X, he goes through a lot of girlfriends, uses them and leaves them." I finally confronted him personally... "how can you treat other people so shabbily? Like toys? " His response was that why not, and his partners seemed to enjoy it at the time, and those who expected commitment were just bringing in their own expectations. I was incensed. "I'll have my fun, they can take care of themselves" was not being considerate of others.
(Later, he and I became close friends, and he was actually the best man at
patgreene and I's wedding. Different story.)My combined upbringing and feminism led me to conclude that women should be equals -- not used as toys or objects. I viewed male aggression, hitting on women, as vestigally patriarchal and boorish. IMO, relations between men and women should be coolly negotiated as equals and partners, with the given woman showing equal initiative and interest. From this viewpoint, men being assertive or dominant was tantamount to abuse, or embracing the old patriarchal system that kept women in their place. Women deserved to be equals and partners, not objects or subservient. Treated with respect, not used for one's pleasure, or groped. Men who acted in "the old ways" towards women were uneducated, were jerks, or reactionary.
If the old dominant cultural paradigm said that submissiveness was expected of women, and dominance of men.. then subvert it! Mix-and-match.
That's where I was, 10-15 years ago.
My operating theory used to be that anyone or anything which placed a woman in a submissive or passive role was being inherently abusive. And I consequently shunned being friends with any other men whom I saw acting assertively around women. Any momentary impulses I had myself in that direction were squelched.
But the theory hasn't fit reality... there appeared to be women who *enjoyed* being submissive, in a negotiated, safe set of boundaries. And men who were assertive without otherwise being a**holes. Life is yet more complicated.
But, okay, given that there exist comfortably-passive women and comfortably-dominating men, how does that correlate with personal equality? Or the interpersonal respect and consideration that is at the foundation of politeness, arguably civilization?
All I can figure thus far is that if roles and approaches are negotiated, are safe, and are freely agreed without coercion, then it isn't really submission by women, because they could choose to renegotiate or even reverse roles. It isn't "forced". Closer to role-playing. As long as it is their choice, then individual rights are being respected. And the converse would hold for men...
Still, it's a reach for me... certain protective reactions still surface when I see what appears to be exploitation or abuse of someone. It is hard to convince myself. And I still feel uneasy about being assertive towards women myself, as if to indicate interest was to make myself a threat, somehow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
Date: 2003-08-23 05:49 pm (UTC)Still, it's a reach for me... certain protective reactions still surface when I see what appears to be exploitation or abuse of someone. It is hard to convince myself. And I still feel uneasy about being assertive towards women myself, as if to indicate interest was to make myself a threat, somehow.
It all seems to be about possessing power: who’s got it, what you can do with it, what will happen if you let it out unleashed. I spent years in therapy myself recognizing and dealing with my own power issues. In fact, I am still dealing with some of them. So please remember I’ve fought these battles myself.
I want to put forth some ideas, and I'm going to be fairly blunt. But mostly what I suggest is that you discuss these issues with a professional. Your social life is being hampered by these unresolved feelings.
Here are some of the issues I see:
--the cultural idea that women are weak and must be protected
--the reality of sexual exploitation and societal inequality
--the conflation of any hint of sexual interest with sexual exploitation, even rape
--the idea that if you behave submissively, you're redressing societal imbalances
There are probably more, but that's a reasonable batch to start with.
Women are weak. I'd love to see you explore the kinds of weakness you perceive or imagine in women. What is weakness, exactly? Vulnerability, emotional or psychological or physical? Showing emotion? Physical frailty, like being subject to ailments? Or physical softness, not being able to lift and carry?
What are you afraid will happen if you should expose a woman's weakness? or hurt her? or damage her? Where did you learn this idea? How was women’s weakness dealt with in your family?
The perception that women are weak is the attitude that's hard to reconcile with feminism. In this sense, at least, your attitude is not feminist; it's classically patriarchal. Protectiveness is not in itself a bad thing. I'm ferociously protective of people I love and of anyone being abused. But I also respect the innate toughness of my female friends, lovers, sisters. They can handle the truth. They can handle a question. The more you wrap people in cotton, the more fragile they become.
Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
Date: 2003-08-23 06:49 pm (UTC)Hmmm... you may be imputing a bit too much, here. Yes, culturally I was raised in an environment full of that attitude... but I've seen a lot of strong women, in various kinds of ways. But I retain old habits. Women can be fighter pilots, astronauts, wrestlers, oncologists, and US attorneys. And lots of other things requiring physical, mental or emotional toughness. But... I still hold doors open. And I still have a strong rescue-damsel-in-distress impulse... nothing gets me moving faster than a call that a female friend or partner is broken down and stranded on 880 somewhere ;-). So intellectually and emotionally I'm happy treating women as equals, but my in-person habits are sometimes still a throwback.
Inconsistent? Yep. I don't deny it. But most women don't object to being treated generally as equals in important areas *and* given extra consideration in little personal things, so it hasn't bitten me often.
Treating partners or female friends carefully? Yes, initially, but not *as fragile people* but as *a fragile relationship*... I don't know them well enough, so I watch carefully and try to be sensitive when I'm in the vicinity of vaguely-known boundaries. Over time, I can relax and then trust in the structural strength of the bond to carry us though misunderstandings.
Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
Date: 2003-08-24 12:32 pm (UTC)I don't know anyone who objects to that. Male or female.
Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
Date: 2003-08-24 08:22 pm (UTC)Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 1 of 2
From:Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-23 05:55 pm (UTC)Making a pass equals sexual exploitation. OK, there are situations in which indicating sexual interest is in fact exploitive and wrong. Do not make a pass at people whose careers you control, at children, at anyone who is unable to consent freely.
There are also offensive ways to indicate interest, and these are variable. Some women may be happy with an approach that would really bother others. People learn to read people and situations and be flexible to deal with them. Making a lot of rigid rules is a waste of energy. It's wonderful that you're aware of the possible issues, but you draw the line so far to the ultraviolet that it's well beyond reasonable.
Are you afraid that women can't consent? Or is it your own power, your own anger and desire and Shadow, that you're afraid of? What will happen if you let it out?
If I'm submissive, I'll make it up to women. Speaking as a Domme, I can tell you that this one is mistaken. Anybody who tries to sub to me without my consent is attempting to violate my boundaries. I don't want all men to be submissive -- just the ones who are happy doing so in relation with their Masters or Mistresses.
There are differences between sexual submission and the kind of meekness you’re talking about, yes. But it’s much more entwined than you might think -- and by that I do not mean that subs are weak. No, in my experience someone who can surrender themselves to a chosen, trusted Dom/me is basically a strong person.
You cannot give up power unless you know you possess it. Nor can you use power effectively if you refuse to take responsibility for it. Repressing your power doesn’t help: it comes out in passive-aggressive behaviors or any of a dozen other ways. At some point you need to face it, embrace it, become it.
Remember the Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk's Shadow split off from the rest of himself? In one area of your life -- sex -- you've taken his behavior as the shadowless Kirk as an ideal. (You can be appropriately assertive at work with no problems, apparently.) But it's not making you happy, as far as I can see. I can't imagine that it makes things easy for you with your wife or your lovers. And what kind of role model are you giving your sons?
If I’m being brutal here, I’m sorry -- but I am hoping my questions will help.
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-23 07:36 pm (UTC)Tough question. Obviously one should respect choice and women are certainly capable of making their own decisions... but one can still finagle the protectiveness, if she doesn't have all of the relevant information. Then by warning/informing (as in the college example I gave) the young women still made their own decisions, but with the knowledge that they might very well be used for awhile and then discarded by the local Lothario. So I had done my part. Some proceeded anyway. One or two told me later that I was right, one woman even thanked me a year hence.
at anyone who is unable to consent freely
Euww... no way would I consider it. I'm more likely to be approached by subordinates... but that's still no-go.
you draw the line so far to the ultraviolet that it's well beyond reasonable
Perhaps... I don't assume that any sexual advance, by anyone, at any time is anything other than a nuisance (or worse) to a given woman. Unless/until she indicates otherwise. Her decision, again ;-). In my own life, *every* advance that I've made, without waiting for a clear prior indication, has been ultimately rebuffed. Better to err on the side of avoiding harassment or exploitation, than to risk making someone else's life harder.
What will happen if you let it out?
That's unpredictable and a bit unnerving. See my response to
I don't want all men to be submissive -- just the ones who are happy doing so
I have no desire to be dominated by anyone -- women or men. I try to be considerate, polite, and respectful... but when people mistake these for submission (which has happened several times) sparks fly. Careers have been derailed. Anyone remember Sam Ervin during Watergate? He was polite, respectful, self-deprecating ("I'm just a country lawyer...") and he nailed the bastards.
But at the same time, I don't see that not-bothering-women = submissiveness or even meekness. Yes, I'm shelving my own animal drives and instincts, but women have it tough enough already without lots of guys making it worse. There's an element of sacrifice in this, but as a male I'm already getting a better social deal and privleges. If some women actually want to be bothered, or hit-upon, that's their choice.
Remember the Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk's Shadow split off from the rest of himself?
No... I was never a fan of the show.
what kind of role model are you giving your sons?
A respectful, considerate, self-controlled one? Putting one's own needs secondary to those of others?
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-24 12:48 pm (UTC)This bothers me in so many ways, I don't even know where to start.
Men's "animal drives and instincts" don't bother me. Neither do women's. I enjoy them. I'd much rather spend time with someone who was emotionally au naturel than someone repressed and uptight.
"Women have it tough enough already"? *snort* Who appointed you the savior and guardian of 51% of the human race? You make my life harder by attempting to decide on my behalf what's best for me. You make my life harder by lumping me in with all other women everywhere, and viewing us as a category rather than as individuals. (That doesn't make your life any easier, by the way.) And you make my life much harder by hiding what you think and feel and only displaying the behavior you think I want to see, because then I have to go through the effort and trouble of maintaining very high barriers around you because I can't trust you to be honest with me.
"Element of sacrifice"? Bullshit. As evinced by the number of responses you're getting from women who dislike this behavior, you're the only one getting anything out of it at all.
And sure, being hit on bothers me sometimes, especially when people are overly aggressive or clumsy about it, or when I think it's all about them and I'm just a convenient target. But people interacting honestly with me--telling me what they need and want, respecting what I say I need and want, not guessing about me or making me guess about them--is a joy and a treasure, and not a bother at all.
You talk about envying people who have more "social success" than you do. Maybe it's time to take a look at how your behavior differs from, say,
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-24 10:10 pm (UTC)Bothered worse than if, say, I'd made a clumsy pass at you? As far as calibration goes... you seem fairly annoyed, here.
Who appointed you the savior and guardian of 51% of the human race?
No one, of course... but it goes back for me to "think globally, act locally". If I perceive some overall exploitation of women by men, then I can't guard 51% of the population, true. But I can at least act in ways that are ethically consistent with not making things worse.
And you make my life much harder by hiding what you think and feel and only displaying the behavior you think I want to see
Hmmm. Interesting implications, there. But isn't most politeness... much of society, FWIW... built on just that?
I'll make a deal with you (or others), if you'd like: sit down and negotiate the safe boundaries with me, and then I'll be open with you about what I think and feel and need. If we've defined that behavior-Y is never offensive, or that expressing emotion-Z is always OK, then I can do or express those things around you without worrying that I'm violating any personal preferences or bounds.
"Element of sacrifice"? Bullshit. ...you're the only one getting anything out of it at all.
I'm losing opportunities to make friends and to possibly get to know others better, by holding back and not approaching them. I'm not sure what I'm getting out of it -- seems like a negative gain on my side. But I justify it by telling myself that I'm not harming others, this way.
think about whether that might just possibly have something to do with it
The people mentioned are better emotionally and socially adjusted, their interests and backgrounds are more closely aligned with those of their peers, they're physically attractive... of course they're going to have more social success, more offers, more attention, etc. My behavior changing to resemble theirs wouldn't change that, methinks...
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
From:Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-23 08:01 pm (UTC)You cannot give up power unless you know you possess it. Nor can you use power effectively if you refuse to take responsibility for it. Repressing your power doesn’t help: it comes out in passive-aggressive behaviors or any of a dozen other ways. At some point you need to face it, embrace it, become it."
YES.
very well said!
I'm thinking that there may be an inherent differnce in the way Brian defines "submission" and the way some of the rest of us do.....
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-24 08:30 pm (UTC)Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-25 09:57 am (UTC)I tend to think of dominant vs. submissive as similar to
yin vs. yang. I practice tai chi so I am very familiar with how these two energies work together.
Yin is absorbing energy, yang is pushing forward kind of energy.
neither is abusive or victimizing, but the two work together and they both have their own strengths and weaknesses!!!
I am much better at yin. Does this make me weak? no!
It is like I'm water, and my 'yang' partner is rock.
You might think rock is stronger than water.. but it is not. Water molds itself around the rock, water gives, yields, but ultimately it is something you can never hold, grab, and is much more difficult to contain than a rock.
I don't know if this is making sense to you.
But the submissive/dominant energy stuff is more like this yin/yang business... than it is about being a victim.
When I am yin in a fighting match.. I am not a victim. Often my opponent ends up on the floor, having fallen there becuase of their own misused energy. All I do is absorb yield and deflect, and I am strong and safe.
does this analogy help at all?
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
From:One other thought . . .
Date: 2003-08-23 06:31 pm (UTC)Maybe you're so busy trying to avoid being an asshole that you're just doing the opposite of what they do. And that doesn't leave you any room for just being Brian. The sad thing is that by trying all the time to be Nonasshole, you're not expressing all the wonderful parts of yourself that might possibly be taken the wrong way. Please don't pare yourself down.
Re: One other thought . . .
Date: 2003-08-23 07:44 pm (UTC)Explore things. Subvert authority. And don't be an asshole in person. Those are three core values of mine, one of which you nailed.
Re: One other thought . . .
Date: 2003-08-24 12:50 pm (UTC)Re: One other thought . . .
Date: 2003-08-24 08:26 pm (UTC)Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
From:Re: One other thought . . .
Date: 2003-08-25 09:44 am (UTC)*points* Yes! Exactly! What she said.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-24 09:48 am (UTC)This is the key, I think.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-24 10:40 am (UTC)Humans are also not mathematical formulas. We often defy logic.
You seem to have a healthy set of virtues working for you. You demonstrate generosity, ethics, patience, effort and wisdom.
I love your desire to know yourself and understand more fully the world of social interaction around you. However, if you feel you can, just sit back once in a while and savor this wild gumbo of contridictions relationships offer. It might be a flavor you grow to like.~S~
no subject
Date: 2003-08-24 10:43 pm (UTC)Humans are also not mathematical formulas. We often defy logic.
We defy logic, or explanation, at times. But that complicates the changing of behavior patterns, since (for me) that requires that I have an explanation that I can employ over and over...
just sit back once in a while and savor this wild gumbo
Not a bad suggestion.... (smile). Although I have to check whether the gumbo contains mushrooms...
no subject
Date: 2003-08-25 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-25 11:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-08-25 12:11 pm (UTC)The whole point of asking is knowing that the other party can say "no". One might prefer to ask with a reasonable expectation of a "yes", but if one is being respectful of the one being asked, the possibility of "no" is always there.
It seems to me that you don't acknowledge the right of women to say no, maybe because you're still untangling that cultural mess of "women say no, but mean yes, because women who say 'yes' are whores and unworthy of respect". Setting up men who ask as cads...oy. In my lexicon, cads are the ones who don't take 'no' as 'no'. Abetted by coquettes who expect "no" to be pushed, so that they can preserve their veil of being "good".
I've had men take my out-of-bed tendency to prefer "take charge" as a blanket consent to being subbed to. IOW, they expect that I'll want them to be submissive to me. I find it offputting. That sort of thing, IMWorld, should be a matter of negotiation. The submission-without-permission is a sort of perverse display of power.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-25 11:27 pm (UTC)Heh. Actually, not only do I acknowledge it, I expect it. And a "no" is absolute... on the very rare occasions when I've dared to ask (and then been rebuffed), I have never pushed... or even asked again in the future, without a clear prior signal.
But politeness and trying to be considerate of women (by not approaching, not touching, not asking to hang out) doesn't mean that I'm trying to sub to them. If I view putting women in a sub role as humiliating or abusive to them, then I'm not going to try to take charge myself. At the same time, I vehemently resist being taken charge of... when others mistake politeness for submission-intent, and act accordingly, sparks fly ;-).
So my approach is to do neither, merely disengage. That way, I'm not bothering them, or violating their boundaries, and they in turn aren't trying to control me. This leads to fewer social contacts and new friends, granted...
no subject
Date: 2003-08-26 10:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-08-26 02:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From: