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.
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
Date: 2003-08-26 02:35 pm (UTC)I don't think your actions actually are ethically consistent. That's what bothers me about them.
Most politeness is built on causing the minimum amount of necessary pain. There is always room for polite, respectful honesty. People who think otherwise aren't being polite; they're being self-indulgent and hiding from the potential of conflict, or not trusting themselves to minimize pain and therefore putting off conflict (by lying) rather than attempting to handle it gracefully.
I won't give you "always" or "never" with respect to my reactions, but I can provide you with 99% certainty. Does that suffice? If so, I'll gladly take you up on that deal.
Your satisfaction with your "not harming others" justification seems to be all that anyone gets out of this, because you're not actually doing anything positive for anyone other than that.
You talk about "better emotionally and socially adjusted" as though it were an immutable fact. Why not look at the ways you consider them to be "better adjusted" than you are, and think about emulating or working toward that? You're not physically unattractive; the first thing I ever noticed about you was how good you look in a tux. *)
Re: Possessing Power -- part 2 of 2
Date: 2003-08-27 06:03 am (UTC)they're being self-indulgent and hiding from the potential of conflict
It almost sounds like conflict would be preferable, sometimes? Or under some circumstances?
I can provide you with 99% certainty. Does that suffice?
Sure, nothing interpersonal is ever completely certain ... a high probability that some behavior, idea or topic will be in/out-of-bounds is sufficient for me to relax around a given person. If I sat down with you, or anyone else, and had that discussion at some point... and it worked... it would cover much of the same ground that required, say, six months of oblique arguments with
not actually doing anything positive for anyone other than that
Okay... hard to say, since I'd be trying to prove a negative (that others were better off by my disengagement or by treating them carefully)
think about emulating or working toward that?
There are certainly things I think I can learn from either of them. But it is hard to learn-by-distant-observation, because one can't really know others' justifications and internal processing... the old "mindreading" game, again. Emulating externalities is possible, but that's more surface-level. I could *ask* them, or others, what works in their lives... but I don't feel I have anything to offer in return, and thence would become a bother, again. And approaching a male regarding anything emotionally-sensitive is much harder for me than approaching a woman (which isn't easy). It's a good idea, overall, but I don't know how it could be implemented.
And I'm glad to know that you like the tux... I wish there were more opportunities to wear it, actually, but in casual California it's limited to New Year's parties.