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}
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
Date: 2003-08-25 11:46 pm (UTC)I think I understand the concept of complementary strengths, different "flavors" as it were.