Manly Men

Smile, Boys! It Would Make The World So Much Prettier For Us Women!

thusspakezuska — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:29:26 +0000

Smile, Boys! It Would Make The World So Much Prettier For Us Women!

The other day, a male friend of mine was at the grocery store in the check out line. He was not feeling particularly happy, and, I guess, was frowning a little. A dude in line behind him tapped him on his shoulder to get his attention and when he turned around, the dude said, in a bright voice, "You dropped something," and was pointing to the floor. My male friend looked down and said, "I don't see anything." The dude then told him, "You dropped your smile." My male friend was not amused. He turned around going back to his business saying, "Oh, OK." The man proceeded to walk away mumbling, "Don't look so serious. It's only the grocery store."

That doesn't sound right, does it?

No, because it really happened to a woman. There, that feels more...normal, doesn't it?

Isis got a letter from a PhD student who was told in a teaching evaluation that she needs to smile more. Isis gave her some excellent advice but I want to address this whole "needs to smile more" issue from a different angle.

If you google "men telling women to smile" you will get a lot of hits. A lot of them. This bit of gender smog is as old as the hills. And the hills are really, really old.

One of those hits is a list of snappy comebacks, some of which are okay, but I think in some situations they just aren't possible. I mean, if your boss is telling you to smile - and very often he is, and he means it - you just can't get away with insulting him. Some women have actually been required to smile as part of the condition of their employment.

The link that comes up that you really want to read is this one on Alas, A Blog. (Unfortunately, it seems the links within the post are not working.)

What depresses me is this. The post from Alas, A Blog is from 2004. That's an eternity in bloggy years, but really...feminists have been discussing the compulsory smiling issue since, oh, hell, forever. Why are we still discussing it? Why is this knowledge not being transmitted to the young ones? Why do the most basic, entry level insights of feminism not percolate through to women in the sciences? I don't know about you, but I Blame The Patriarchy.

Here are the top reasons why men ~~ask~~ ~~tell~~ order women to smile, in no particular order.

Many men have difficulty distinguishing women from things like potted hyacinth and framed prints of Monet's "Water Lilies" - inexpensive, disposable, and interchangeable bits of color that can be used to brighten any room. Like the hyacinth, sometimes women are scented! Art,such as the "Water Lilies", decorates a room. The Mona Lisa is art, and she is smiling. Women who aren't smiling just aren't as decorative.
Many men are confused by women who do not smile. You see, women are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. They are supposed to smile. Smiles are gender normative on women. Non-smiling women are confusing for men.
Many men suffer from fixer-itis. It takes more muscles to frown than to smile! A smile lowers your blood pressure! You will feel better if you smile! We all feel better when we see someone smile! I am just trying to help!
Many men have trouble managing their own emotions. By "managing", in this case, we of course mean "suppressing", which is what they have been taught to do with just about any emotion since childhood (except anger and rage, which are manly and appropriate). Smiling women reassure them that everything is a-okay and they can go on about whatever manly business they are conducting in the world.
Many men confuse women in the workplace with their mothers. Mom always (or never) smiled at them at home, and so it is of utmost importance that the secretary, or the flight attendant, or the person ringing up their groceries, or lecturing at them from the front of the classroom, beam beatifically at them as a veritable Madonna. In this way, even though they were forced to separate from mom and not be such a baby and grow a pair and be a man and not cry like a girl and man up and not be gay and like football and be a hardass, they can still feel mother love in every woman's smile, no matter who the hell she is.
Most of all, many men like to feel in control. There is often no simpler and quicker way to feel in control of things in a world where nearly everything that matters is completely out of your control than to demand that some random stranger rearrange her facial expressions to suit your preference, on the spot. When she smiles at your command, you know that whatever petty humiliations the world may visit upon your head, you could totally fuck that bitch.

So here's the take-home lesson, ladeez. Smile and dress nice and act like a lady - and you will be considered to be a silly, thoughtless, insignificant girl. Don't smile and dress for comfort and you will be considered to be a ball-busting, man-hating lesbian bull-dyke - or, possibly, Ozzy Ozbourne. You will be called a trope, or a caricature feminist, or a reverse sexist, or a slut, or frigid. You will be said to have fucked too much, or in need of a good fucking, or your problem will lie in the fact that no one wants to fuck you, in which case you need a good fucking but are unlikely to get one. But no matter who you are, and what is wrong with you - because, mark my words, something is ALWAYS wrong with you - there will always be some damn asshat around the corner just waiting to cheerfully insist that you smile, smile, smile!

In which case, you might want to ask yourself: What Would Zuska Do?

Being ordered to smile always has the same effect on me. I get queasy. And I want to puke on some shoes.

If the moron is not your boss and is a complete stranger, I think the appropriate response is a simple "no" and walk away, or just walk away. Do not gratify their impulses. Engaging them in conversation is gratifying their impulses.

If the request has come via course evaluation, it might behoove you to make sure whoever is reviewing your course evaluations understands that "smile more" is not an appropriate request. Maybe just ask them, oh so innocently, whether such requests commonly show up on the evaluation forms of men...

If the request has come from your boss and it is NOT part of your stated job requirement (I think flight attendants are actually required to smile, for example), then you might try a dodge, like, "thank you for inquiring, but I have a lot on my mind today." If the requests persist over time, and you feel comfortable enough, you might venture a comment such as, "I notice that you often inquire about my smiling about this time of day. Isn't that interesting? I have this report ready for us to discuss..."

If your significant other is often demanding that you smile when you do not feel happy, or expressing an anxiety about you displaying anything other than extremely happy emotions...uh oh. It may be couples therapy time. In the short term, you could try this: "I notice that it is difficult for you when I feel a little down or sad. I don't need you to fix me or take away my sad feelings. Sometimes the best thing one person can do for another is just let them have their feelings. I hope you can do that for me."

Good luck! And don't smile on command! Unless you are a d00d. Because we women could sure use a little more beauty here around the workplace.

thusspakezuska Tue, 04/06/2010 - 04:29

Tags

Gratuitous Sexism

Ludicrous Language

Manly Men

Naming Experience

WWZD

men who ask women to smile

People tell me to smile all the time. It's really irritating.

The morning after my father died, I had to come into work to clear a couple of things before I flew back to the US. One of my co-workers gave me the whole "Oh, come on, smile, it's not that bad!" cheery chirpy be-decorative-for-me bullshit thing, without asking what was going on in my life -- apparently without thinking that it even might be something important. I was furious. How better to say, "your feelings and the events in your life which prompted them are utterly trivial, and unimportant compared to how I think you ought to be in order to brighten my environment." It is certainly not an expression of real concern for the person being told to smile.

Some men are required to smile too. It's one of the basic requirements of a lot of public-facing jobs; the extreme case is being a greeter, where smiling at the public basically IS the job. Women get hired more often to do this sort of work, likely in part because they've been socialized to the whole thing of smiling for the public and therefore find it easier to do, but there are men in the same position.

The significant other case is complicated. Is the other concerned because you are displaying unhappy emotions (bad unless you're carrying it to extremes that are interfering with life function), or concerned because you are unhappy (basically good although it can be overdone)? And he should be encouraged to listen (when you want to talk) rather than being obsessed with either eradicating the show of unhappiness or trying to fix it.

You lost me with this post, sorry.

Not saying that it does not happen to women, not even going to assert that it might be more men-on-women than vice versa.

What I am going to say is that the person who walks around displaying a huge chip on their shoulder is going to get more 'smile' types of comments.

Gender smog? I call shenanigans.

Maybe it's a US/UK thing - but no, it doesn't feel any more normal if it was a woman or a man - I've never seen anyone say anything like that to a stranger. With friends I've seen it happen both ways. Is there any real scientific data for this occuring?

Over here from Isis's blog. This is SO timely. I am feeling like SHIT right now, for a myriad different reasons. If someone tells me to fucking smile I will fucking rip them a new asshole. Even my boss.

Hmmm, I believe the gang of little lads must be right. First off, I completely forgot to think about men. Second, it might happen to women, maybe even more than men, but this is of course meaningless, and remarking upon it is, well, just asking for it. Third, dear god, what about the science? On review, I probably never should have written this post at all. I should have baked something, and smiled.

Little lads, don't be offended at my name for you. It is the total equivalent to the oft-used moniker to address a group of women trying to make a point: little ladies. As in, what are the little lads buzzing about now? If you feel dismayed in any way, my recommendation would be: smile! It costs nothing, brightens your day and that of the person next to you, uses fewer facial muscles than frowning, can lower your blood pressure, and can change your whole outlook on the world! There! Don't you feel better now that you are smiling???!?!?!

Mansplaining in 3...2...1...oh wait, I'm too late for that countdown.

I actually heard a guy complaining that women in clubs were telling him to smile. First time I've ever heard that.

The one time someone did this to me, I had JUST seen a dead squirrel right nearby me, and then he came out of the blue. I promptly said, "I just saw a dead squirrel," which you'd think would quash his buzz. But nooooooo, he just ignored me. All things considered, I'm lucky the dude didn't decide to spontaneously stalk me, I suppose.

One of the benefits of living in a particularly introverted part of the world is that people rarely muster the courage to tell complete strangers anything.

I try to smile most of the time because I got tired of people bugging me to smile. So I smile to shut them up, not because I've got anything to smile about. And people seem to be perfectly content with the happy friendly surface presentation because it frees them of any inclination to actually connect to another person and talk with them about whatever (if anything) may be upsetting them. We are a shallow society.

Nah, you don't have to bake unless you want to... ..in fact, I am baking some nice sourdough right now. You are welcome to share it with me!

But please, when you bullshit a bullshitter, expect to be called on it. But it is your blog, and I do understand you are trying to get more readers.

I wonder, though, with so many gender equity issues still unaddressed, if this kind of triviality just diminishes the impact of the whole.

...just sayin', it is not always a personal vendetta. I get told to smile all the time.

I've certainly had strange men (usually elderly men) tell me to smile while shopping, while walking down the street, while minding my own business. I've even had a (young) man yell at me for not smiling at him as we passed each other crossing the street, though the fact that he was wearing tartan pjs and a big furry hat while on a public street suggests he was less than balanced mentally. It does feel awkward (and in the case of mr. furry hat rather frightening) but my general response is just to give them a strained smile and move on. Then again, I am Canadian and being polite to strangers is reflex.

I wonder, though, with so many gender equity issues still unaddressed, if this kind of triviality just diminishes the impact of the whole.

Steve, that is an excellent wonderment. You will find a useful answer to that wonderment here.

And now we return to our regularly scheduled blog discussion.

I've always been a little put off from seeing male strangers tell female strangers on the street to smile. On the surface it seems like a friendly thing to say, just a little pushy is all, but to the recipient it's rather blithely obnoxious. (Not the least because often the only easy way to get rid of such people is to oblige them.)

One of the lovely things that accompanied turning 40 a few years back was the realization that I didn't have to please most people. I can tell strangers to STFU when they do crap like this!
And my boss would NEVER ask me to smile. If I looked really sad or pissed, he would ask what was going on and not make rash assumptions. Otherwise he might be maimed already.

Wildly overstated problem--you won't get a lot of women commiserating with you about their bosses ordering them to smile. That's just goofy. Also, thanks for giving men so much credit here, really.

Ha ha! OK, fair enough, I can see how my comment could be interpreted that way, Z. Interesting link.

My apologies, a red herring was not my intent.

Apparently hostility trumps discussion. Too bad.

This happens to me all the time, drives me mad. And I'm in the UK Brian Clegg, so it's definitely not something that only happens in America. Usually it's builders, bus drivers, or shop assistants though, not just random people I walk past. And my male friends are constantly surprised when they're with me and some random stranger tells me what to do, which does suggest that it happens a lot more to women than men. Anecdotes may not = data, but I reckon there's enough comments so far with anecdote to start building up some data.

Not that that stops the mansplaining. Maybe we should all just smile and not worry our pretty little heads anymore?

@Brian Clegg: Anecdotally, I think it's possible that you're right. I must have a glum looking face as I when I lived in the UK I was told to cheer up regularly. Since I moved to the US, it hasn't happened.

(The direct result of this is that I will never, ever tell anyone to smile, since I have had regular reinforcement of how patronising and annoying it is).

Teenage dreams - if it's not a UK/US thing, perhaps it's an age thing in the UK... I suspect I'm quite a lot older than you. I'd consider it extremely rude to make any comment to a stranger that wasn't purely practical.

I'd still be interested to hear if there's any proper scientific data - this sounds like pure anecdote at the moment.

@teenage dreams: .... and I'm not female, so how the hell would I know what happens to women. I'm going to shut up now.

@Brian Clegg

I'll be 49 this Saturday and have lived in the UK all my life. Thankfully it's been a couple of years at least since anyone's told me to smile.

Yes, UK men of all ages do it to women of ages up to mine. Yes it's a fucking impertinence.

I have actually responded to the "Smile! It doesn't cost anything!" demand once with:

"No, I will not. I'm having a really shitty day, and I therefore DEMAND that *you* scowl in solidarity!!!"

This shut the other person up. I think they were too shocked to issue retribution but I hope it gave them food for thought. In any case it made me feel smug and vindicated so there.

And to those of you who wonder whether these experiences are anecdotal or scientific fact...does it matter, actually?

If random people feel they have a right to make demands about a stranger's facial expression, and that stranger is uncomfortable with those demands, is a body of data v. that uncomfortable personal experience really the point?

Or is it that you doubt that some people are subjected to these uncomfortable personal experiences just because you are not? Is it that you think that commenters sharing their anecdotes of personal experience are actually making them up?

This is simply a fact, and I appreciate having it aired out so people can start working on fixing it. There, was that so hard, boys?

Maybe it's the strong case of The Gay I've been carrying, but I've never understood why all of Isis' posts that point out things that are obviously sexist attract mansplainers like flies to vinegar.

The mansplainers will say I'm white-knighting, but really, I'm just embarrassed that members of my gender would rather come across as a bunch of condescending jerks who can't take criticism than accept a single negative point from a female.

Or Zuska's. Whoops.

Normally the ironically inappropriate ads on science blogs are for untested herbal remedies and such. When I read this blog this morning, though, the ads were for dating Chinese women promoted as "cheerful" and "virtuous" and all shown smiling. Yikes. Whatever software picks the banner ads is obviously not designed to catch irony or patriarchy.

I used to get this on a near-daily basis as a teenager (I guess my neutral face looked scowly), several times shouted from cars. I blew up in response once (I had visited my uncle in the hospital that morning, a strange man told me to smile, I told him to fuck off), and apparently this was wildly inappropriate and I needed to apologize. Strangers expecting me to alter my disposition to suite their aesthetics was, however, totally okay.

I suspect that the decorative explanation you mentioned is the largest reason, or at least that's how it's always seemed to me. It seems part of the whole acceptability of critiquing women for daring to be physically unattractive in public.

...it really happened to a woman. There, that feels more...normal, doesn't it?

Uh, no it doesn't. The whole idea of telling a stranger to smile seems like weird intrusive behaviour to me, regardless of either person's gender. I've personally never seen or heard about such a thing before. I'm sure it happens, but it seems like an outmoded behaviour influenced by an outmoded, sexist attitude. If you've experienced this I can understand why it would piss you off - I would probably lash out at any stranger who made inappropriate personal comments towards me. No one should tolerate that kind of behaviour.

Anyway, I suspect we will see less and less of that sort of stuff over time, but I'm an optimist.

@ Jennifer. Oops.

I'm afraid I just complained over at Isis's about being chided about not smiling in a topless club. I guess I learned not to do it back then, but I don't know how to teach it. I'll try with my 2yo boy.

In 1986 I was in a big corporate training program. During my review I was told that I should have smiled when I asked a question of a senior person who came to talk to the training class.

I think men and women feel challenged when a woman doesn't smile, and it makes them nervous. And one of the commentators here even characterized it (a woman not smiling) as having a "chip" on her shoulder.

It's somewhat parallel to our society's nervousness about angry black men. Obama bends over backwards to not act in a way that hits on that nervousness.

Oh, good! Some meaningless babble about mommy issues.

Maybe you could pull your head out of your ass, and realize that 90% of the time when this happens, it's just an incredibly awkward attempt at trying to hit on someone? It's dumb and immature, but it's also not caused by deep-rooted male psychological issues. Dude just sucks at trying to get laid, and is doing it at an inappropriate time no less.

Insert derisive posts about how my opinion doesn't count because I'm a 'little lad' below.

@32

And why would someone think that telling someone else to smile is a useful/appropriate way to hit on someone else? Is it random word salad, or is there a reason that this particular tactic is common?

Also, I am suddenly stunned by the number of male teachers, elderly men, friends' parents, married men in the company of their wives, and male relatives who have apparently been attempting to ask me out over the course of my life. Stunned and disturbed.

It's been awhile since I've gotten this, but I think it's partially because I've developed a "defense" mechanism where I smile at everyone as soon as I look at them to avoid hearing about it.

A few years back, before I was reflexively smiling at everyone, I was working in retail and I got this ALL THE TIME. There was one older guy in particular who used to say stuff like "You're too pretty NOT to smile!" and then he would get some other guys' attention and try to get them to agree! For a shy introvert this was especially uncomfortable and humiliating.

For all the little lads who are having trouble grasping the topic of this thread: the topic of this thread is how men - complete, random strangers, even - frequently command women to smile. Whether or not this happens is not up for debate. Whether or not it is meaningful is not up for debate. How and when it happens and how and why it is meaningful and what might be done about it, are the topics being discussed here.

If you wish to post about any of the following:
1. Pointlessness of OP (demands to smile)
2. Irrelevance of OP in light of more pressing issues
3. Insignificance of OP topic
4. OP topic does not, in fact, exist in real life
5. OP topic is really helpful and/or not harmful, women should just understand men better

Then you may want to take your comments to this thread. If that is not satisfactory you may wish to consider reading a different blog. Make sure to smile!

JBC - Is some dude's immature attempt to hit on a woman (and his sense of entitlement to subject random women to such attempts) really OK then? Better than demanding random strangers to change their facial expressions to make him more comfortable? 'Cause from where I stand (over here being the woman who gets told to smile by random people), it doesn't matter one flying fuck whether he's trying to get in my pants or just wants to see my teeth. He still has no claim on my bodily autonomy and is nonetheless trying to exert some, and to that I say "fuck off".

JD wrote:

The mansplainers will say I'm white-knighting, but really, I'm just embarrassed that members of my gender would rather come across as a bunch of condescending jerks who can't take criticism than accept a single negative point from a female.

It's cause the jerks get all the chicks.

"Also, I am suddenly stunned by the number of male teachers, elderly men, friends' parents, married men in the company of their wives, and male relatives who have apparently been attempting to ask me out over the course of my life. Stunned and disturbed."

As am I! And to think, I was just stupid to realize all those men were just trying to fuck me! Silly me! That makes it all ok! And apparently, the older man I spoke of in my previous comment was just trying to get some group action going!

Give me a break.

that should be "too stupid to realize", in my post above.

Wow you're an ass. You seriously think it's cool to throw around the "little lads" language? Obviously you take umbrage at "little ladies" when referring to females, so what makes little lads OK? Also love the attempt at steering the comments towards less interesting subjects ("what might be done about it"? are you serious) and away from the more obvious points ("you are a deluded man-hating wackjob").

JBC:

Maybe you spend a lot of time making immature and ineffective attempts to seduce strangers and coworkers by telling them to smile, and therefore know that this is what you mean by 90% of it. But that doesn't mean you can be sure that it's true of the millions of other lads who do it.

And why does "it's not general sexism or bullying, it's sexual harassment" strike you as a defense?

It's cause the jerks get all the chicks.

This is a common misconception. It arises from simple math.

Many heterosexual women are in relationships, and, no surprise, they are in relationships with heterosexual men. As any heterosexual woman will tell you, the percentage of jerky straight men is far greater than that of non-jerky straight men in the overall population. Thus, looking at the landscape of heterosexual couples, it will appear that women prefer jerky men, since the vast majority of them will have coupled off with jerky men, but that's simply due to lack of adequate variety when making selections.

The real head-scratcher is not why straight women prefer jerky men to non-jerky men. It's why they don't prefer being alone to being with jerky men.

'Oh I'm sorry, but I just heard my Granpa died' seems to work every time (and yes this has happened to me). That might not really be what's making me look unhappy, but whatever it is, it's none of their business. Who the hell do they think they are, the jerks, to claim ownership over other people's facial expressions.

Hey, how about 'I'm just so worried because I don't know how I'm going to make the rent. Do you think you can help me?'

The scenario wouldn't seem too weird if it were a woman speaking to a man, or a gay man speaking to another gay man. It becomes weird when a default reaction is to assume both men in the story are heterosexuals, and for some reason one is the least bit concerned with the stranger's demeanor. It doesn't matter if the theoretical man is really hitting on the theoretical woman, it matters that the rules of interaction between a hetero man and a hetero woman are heavily shaped by relationships with parents and partners. Why it happens more to women is a matter a of sexism, but why it doesn't happen between two straight men isn't.

"90% of the time when this happens, it's just an incredibly awkward attempt at trying to hit on someone?"

Hey womankind, did you know that men are just trying to stick their penis in you? That makes whatever they do OK! Men have incredible lattitude when it comes to the pursuit of boning you. Duh, that's what ladies are for!

"It's dumb and immature, but it's also not caused by deep-rooted male psychological issues. Dude just sucks at trying to get laid, and is doing it at an inappropriate time no less."

Listen, mansplainer, we KNOW that's what they're trying to do! THAT'S WHY WE DON'T LIKE THIS BEHAVIOR! We actually don't like being treated like walking vaginas every time we go outside, anymore than YOU would like it. FFS!

If that is not satisfactory you may wish to consider reading a different blog. Make sure to smile!

Or start your own blog. In smilish!

Bubs, straight up, dude. I mean really, if you think about it, most women probably have lots of good reasons to hate men. It's a wonder we don't hear more of them blathering on about how much they hate men, what with being ordered to smile and subjected to rape and not believed or even listened to whenever they start yammering on about whatever the hell it is they are trying to say about whatever bit of their experience they seem to think is relevant or interesting. I really wonder why you don't hear more women talking about how much they hate men, or at least see more movies and t.v. shows where men are stalked and dismembered and forcibly sexually assaulted - you know, to sort of just release some of that anger in a non-harmful, playful, artistic sort of way.

I have a friend who has perfected a response to this: when told to "Smile!" she bares her teeth. Not in a smile per-se, more of a "I am considering ripping out your throat with these here teeth" expression. Combined with an intense gaze,it really reminds you why primates consider smiling to be a threat. And it gets rid of people fast.

@JBC
This is what is known in some circles as "digging your own grave."

Let's summarize, shall we? "No, it's not because of mommy issues, it's because some men view each woman they meet as a page in the Vaginas Monthly catalog." Wow, what an improvement.

Texas Reader @ 31 said: "And one of the commentators here even characterized it (a woman not smiling) as having a "chip" on her shoulder."

Not quite. Not "a woman not smiling", nor 'her' shoulder.

It was a remark about human behavior and response, not gender issues. Whole different meaning.

I suppose I could write a blog about your remark. Was it motivated by a simple mis-read, or were there gender biases at play?

Dick wrote:

The real head-scratcher is not why straight women prefer jerky men to non-jerky men. It's why they don't prefer being alone to being with jerky men.

The real head-scratcher is that it's the year 2010, and one can still say "jerks get all the chicks" - on a feminist blog no less - and have people assume one is being serious.

But I really knew that; apologies for the lack of smileys and disclaimers.

No harm no foul, Andreas. My simple math explanation will help those here in 2010 who really are still wondering why all the jerky men get the chicks.

Speaking as a man, I've twice been told by female bosses that I needed to smile more in the workplace.

I've spent years ordering women to amusingly pretend their lower lip is caught on a fishing line, and they're only just starting to question it. Now I'll have to hide this post from them lest they realize they've always had the power to emancipate themselves. A pox on you, Zuska.

I HATE that! All of my non-science-or-teaching jobs have been cashiering some place or another, so I got this a few times. I just wanted to yell at them "Dude, I:
1)Greeted you politely and asked how you were doing when you approached my register
2)Proceeded to handle your transaction quickly and competently
3)Told you to have a nice day
What more than that are you entitled to (and note, parts 1 and 3 are not entitlements but common courtesy)???"

SO frustrating. A lot of people assume cashiers are just robots who should either a) be ignored or b) do your bidding- they're people too! Even the young female ones!

(Although that still didn't frustrate me as much as the guy who after I wished him a nice day yelled at me for not also thanking him. Apparently, I was supposed to thank him for gracing the store (and me) with his presence. Ummm, NO.)

If anyone ever tells me to smile - not that it's ever happened or is ever likely to happen, what with me having a penis and all - I already have a ready answer to hand: "My mother died this morning." This response is best delivered in a flat, no-affect-whatsoever fashion. It's possible - albeit just barely possible - that the shame of having been such an intrusive jackass will discourage the self-appointed smile cop from engaging in this sort of idiocy ever again. Or so one might hope. (Plus, I can tell my mother about it later. She'd find it funny.)

Sometimes, when I'm walking alone, I randomly grin wide, since I'm thinking of something amusing. This provokes weird glares from people, and since I'm not making eye-contact with them, I doubt it's because they think I'm grinning at them specifically. So, you can't really win. Smile! Or you might make other people uncomfortable! Oh wait, don't smile too much! That's just creepy!

@Sierra: Brilliantly stated.

In my first few months working after college, I was going through my project with my supervisor and a co-worker and toward the end, they mentioned that I shouldn't feel bad, they're not trying to critisize me personally.

I wasn't shy to explain my thought processes on said project. I guess because I wasn't smiling and going "uh huh" they thought I was reacting negatively to their input (I wasn't). It irked me because I doubt they would have felt that way if I wasn't a woman.

Don't get me wrong, both these men are good people and I work well with them now, but at the time I felt it was really odd that they read into my body language thought I was offended. Chemical engineering isn't exactly a female-heavy profession, though, and I definitely get the feeling sometimes that my colleagues don't know exactly how "female" I'm supposed to act.

Because that's supposed to involve a lot of smiling and agreeing, I guess.

I used to encounter Men Demanding Smiles all the time. My face in repose is not the least bit scowly, but I got it a lot. I guess the thoughtful expression of a woman who is not being thoughtful on the subject of YOU is off-putting and needs to be corrected.

It has ceased, largely, I believe, because I have slid into public invisibility - i.e. "middle age." I am not sad about this, I hasten to add. It is liberating in the extreme.

Oh, and I have always loved the Miss Manners response: an icy expression and the archly asked question "Why? Did you say something funny?"

Thanks for the link to that list of responses. I have a (female) coworker who does this to me, and the reason I generally don't smile around her is because I'm busy and she's interrupting, and she has also done untrustworthy things to other coworkers. Next time she insists that I smile, I'll either either keep a straight face and say, "If you want me to smile, maybe you should do something amusing", or I'll put on a clearly fake smile and tell her that my cat just died.

Wow some of you little lads get your undies in a bunch when women talk about anything but what wonderful, perfect dewds you are! Cry me a river, wankers!

it is funny that so many of you whiny little lads felt the need to comment - REPEATEDLY - just to tell us how so totally not a problem this is. Insecure much?

Whenever I'm told by rando-douchebag to smile they get one of two responses: 1) Amuse me, jester! or 2) Your death would be pretty funny.

Unless it's the elderly, in which case, I generally just nod and move on.

Both usually results in shocked silence or in the smile-demanding douche revealing his true nature with a few misogynstic slurs. Because when a woman won't perform on cue, it's because SHE'S got a problem.

I ranted on this topic a few years back, too. They only want to cheer you up, poor well-meaning dears, and if you do not find curt orders from rude strangers to be cheering, well, fuck you, bitch.

http://capacioushandbag.blogspot.com/2006/06/one-rant-two-good-newses_2…

Reminds me of the line: "You must have the kind of smile that lights up a room."
*person smiles*
"Whoops, I guess I was wrong."

Seriously though I am going to make sure to tell my wife to smile as soon as I get home. Then I'll be sure to tell her to, "calm down young lady" when she gets upset.
Being a man is awesome.

I used to get this several times a week (I think this was to do with being pretty and having a naturally solemn expression). Now, with glasses, a couple of extra stone on my hips, and grey hairs coming in, it's a lot less of a personal problem. My smiliness hasn't increased, though.

I tried the "bad thing has just happened" defence a few times, and their normal response was to get angry and hostile at being called on it - although the builder getting hit by his coworker for making me cry on my way to a family funeral (true, for once) was unhealthily satisfying.

I'm sure as hell not going to try justify this sort of behaviour, as I personally have always found it irritating. But I do have some questions. My apologies in advance if these are considered mansplaining in some way.

Why do so many people seem to feel the need to tell me to smile? I have a grim face, but in what way is that a stranger's business? I can certainly accept Zuska's reasoning for why men do this to women, but I don't think the same explanation holds up for why women do this to me. It's typically older women, although I don't know if that's relevant.

Oh, excellent post, Miss Prism! (link @64)

This paragraph:

When a bloke says CULIMNH - which would make a good trendy Gaelic baby name, pronounced "Keith" - he is of course not really concerned for the happiness of the lady in question. Firstly, he will usually say it not to a woman who looks genuinely upset, but to one of neutral countenance who has done nothing to provoke, evoke, invoke or otherwise voke the comment. Secondly, if he really thought she was unhappy, and wanted to go against the usual human habit of ignoring distressed people in public, he'd ask a question, like "Are you OK?" or "Is everything all right?", or perhaps, if he thought something truly terrible had happened, "Can I get you a cup of tea?"

made me realize that part of what is going on is also about making sure that the woman's attention is focused on the man - not on something else, and definitely not on her own inward thoughts. The demand to smile functions as an interruption of her right to her own personal thought-space. She should at all times be ready and aware of men around her, and what they need. And that awareness and readiness to serve is signified with a smile.

Call me naive, but I never considered that this could be offensive. Just thought it was someone trying to cheer me up, which made me think well of them. I'm retrieving memories of mainly women telling me to smile if I'm expressionless or scowling; maybe this is why I'm not offended by it. It can be annoying at times, but I've never considered it a sexist act.

I've seen guys do this all the time to women and believe me, it was done to be sexist.

Never understood the whole muscles thing. Fact is, I'm not forceably frowning ever. My face (due to gravity and plain old lip shape) just falls into a slight downturn naturally. It takes a lot more effort to smile and keep it up since I'd have to consciously be thinking about it.

I myself have been told to smile a half-dozen times in my life -- all from panhandlers. I would definitely agree that the main motivation (regardless of the genders involved) is an excuse for getting the other person's attention, one that even seems friendly on the surface of it.

I disagree Brian, the main motivation is to be sexist.

I have to agree 100% with the post here. I loathe it when someone has the arrogance to tell me to smile when I damn well don't feel like it and it's none of their damn business anyway.

What I hadn't considered, though, was how it felt to be a woman being ordered to smile by a man. Not just an invasion of privacy; not just trivializing one's emotional state; but demeaning as well.

I'm glad Dr. Isis pointed to this post. I've added your blog's feed to my RSS.

I think another reason why men demand smiling is that when women are smiling, they don't have to consider that women have thoughts and feelings and complexity like - *gasp* - real live human beings! When women have vapid smiles all the time one can pretend they're just fembots, ready for orders.

The last time some d00d demanded my smile (and he shouted it like an order from a drill sergeant while pointing at me), I replied, equally demanding, "Don't order me around!" I liked that response, I may have to use it again. In the past I have simply said, confusedly, "Why?" which generally elicits stammers since said d00d can't really articulate exactly why he is ordering you around without sounding like a jerk.

Men only tell you to smile, because in public they can't ask you to show them your tits like they do on Chatroulette.
Though they're both the same thing.

I don't get this from strangers so much as male coworkers. Not generally my boss, my last boss never demanded any ridiculous personality display from me, and my current boss would rather I aim to be "more confident" and could probably care less about my smiling. But when it's a coworker you still can't say "F@#$ off" which is my preferred response. I usually just say "i'm thinking." There's kind of a culture around here of smiling and saying hi to everyone you pass in the hallway, but if a dude does not smile he is never called out on it. Usually the guys don't just say "smile!" they say "why so gloomy" or "cheer up" or sometimes "that bad, huh?" At least to the last I can respond, "yeah." I've honestly had to tell people "my face just looks like that." Like what I presume is a neutral facial expression they assume to be very negative or grumpy. I'm overjoyed all the mansplainers came on over to this thread, their personal anecdotes >> my personal anecdotes.

No, because it really happened to a woman. There, that feels more...normal, doesn't it?

Not at all; I've read such stories before, and every single time I'm struck by how it's even possible anyone would talk to a random stranger without necessity. That goes even for how comment 19 implies that the bus driver talks to you; in the buses I've used, that's unthinkable if you don't know them personally.

In fact, I get pretty confused when strangers who greet me (which they do because they live in the same students' home, say) smile at me. That sends the message they're genuinely happy to see me, when I have not the slightest reason to think that's actually the case. At times I've almost been tempted to tell them to stop and to tell them, angrily, that they're not actually happy to see me.

But then, I've never lived in the US or the UK for more than a week at a time, and my life is sheltered in general. I've encountered all the attitudes listed in the post as "top reasons", though fortunately not firsthand.

David, are they telling you to smile?

Does this mean that if someone I'm paying to teach me social skills (for Asperger's) tells me I need to learn to smile all the time so people won't be uncomfortable, I should fire them and find someone else? (Trainer is female, btw.) I do smile when I greet people I know, but my default facial expression (or nervous expression) is fairly neutral. I am told this means people think I am aloof or even angry.

I guess I've never really thought of it this way. I've actually asked men and women that I know to smile when they're down (I'm female btw). I'm a big believer that faking a smile can actually make you feel happier - it does for me anyways. And that's all I mean by it - nothing more. So I don't think that men necessarily mean anything demeaning when they say this to a woman. I could be wrong, though, in which case I prefer living in my own blissful ignorance. ;)

Surprised no one's brought up that annoying study from '99, about gender diffs in smiling for yearbook pics. Amongst all the hypotheses proffered for this effect by the (male) first author, never once did he consider that the usually male photogs inevitably pester girls & women to "smile!" As for the change happening around ages 9-12, that only represents the time they stop telling boys to do so. My take, anyway.

The command to smile happened to me all the fucking time when I worked as a cashier. The slimeballs with the "honey, you'd look prettier if you smile" and "smile for me, brighten *my* day" left me with the distinct feeling of knowing those assholes were gonna go home that night and *think* about smiling me in ways I don't care to be thought of. Ewwwww.

My best response to the smile command is to tell the guy he's an ugly fucker, make the Ewwww face, and say that smiling sure doesn't improve his looks.

WWZD? PUKE ON HIS SHOES!! and walk away smiling, of course. :) :) :) :) :)

@80 As an Aspie myself I get the comments about the persistent angry look on my face. Now, I am usually nervous/anxious in public and it keeps people from engaging me, which is fine. I'm self-conscious about my smile so smiling makes me uncomfortable, and my discomfort makes others uncomfortable (apparently). I wouldn't take what your trainer said too literally, as in smile all the time, but in my own experience a smile is to be used sparingly for maximum effect.

I used to get these comments ALL the time when I was working in retail (in the mall) or just in the mall. Mostly from men but some from older women. I hated it and I hate it.

Also my mouth naturally turns down so I look like I'm frowning when my face is relaxed and neutral. So I'm not frowning or mad or sad or upset I just am. It's really really frustrating when people make a presumption about my emotional state just by looking at me.

I can't do a half smile or slight smile I look like I'm grimacing. And when I smile full on all the time it feels fake. Actually it reminds me of the ST:TNG episode where Dr. Crusher teaches Data to dance and they are waltzing and she tells him to smile and they move around and he's got this big fake smile pasted on his face. That's what I feel like I look like when I smile all the time.

as to the person who thinks it's great to fake a smile when you are down -- it works for you and that's great. However it doesn't work for everyone else and it can be annoying (even if you think you know someone) to be told to smile.

I usually end up telling people - I'm not frowning/sad/depressed/upset this is what my face looks like when I'm relaxed. Sometimes they get upset but seriously! Don't be presumptious and tell me to smile when you don't know what the deal is.

Oh and the worst is the people who act offended if I'm not smiling. I want to say, although I never have -- if you find my looks offensive then that's not my fault it's yours so deal with it.

I must say that I love the Beastie Boys for opening "Intergalactic" with "Don't you tell me to smile." That was the first time I really thought about how inappropriate it was for complete strangers to tell me that before, and being Boys, their feelings are legitimate, so mine must be too! Ah, pre-feminist blog life, how much it sucked to not know that there wasn't anything wrong with me for being bothered by this.

I hadn't gotten the request from random stranger to smile thing in years, until about a month back, when I was sick as a dog, could barely walk, and some random dood at the gas station pulled it on me. I had been planning on explaining in great detail how condescending it is to demand that complete strangers look more decorative even when they may not feel like it, if I ever got it again (great thing about growing older, that kind of BS grows much less frequent), but of course, I was barely capable of thinking, wait, did I just get told to smile, and just sort of stared at him in dumb shock, only to be told that I didn't have to be RUDE about it. More anecdata that it's people who are seen as vulnerable who get this most frequently, whether it be due to illness, youth, recent personal loss (as happened to the commenter above), etc.

There are some annoying people who do it to everyone who isn't smiling for the judges, but I have found that that type of person is obviously one of THOSE PEOPLE - very different vibe from the Be More Decorative for Me doodz. Photographers who act like a smile isn't a smile unless you look like you are trying out for a toothpaste ad get told point blank, "I AM smiling. Maybe you shouldn't be in the visual arts if you can't see that."

"No, I will not. I'm having a really shitty day, and I therefore DEMAND that *you* scowl in solidarity!!!" I love it.

From what I've experienced, random people on the street telling you to smile: total sexism. Family members and friends generally ask "what's wrong?" when I've got my neutral/thinking face on, which is annoying, but not sexist at least.

I blame the mass media for only showing people (ok, women) whose mouths naturally curve up, and whose eyebrows are artificially high.

I think flight attendants are actually required to smile, for example[.]

This is because if the flight attendants stop smiling, the passengers will think the plane is going down and they're ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It occurred to me while reading all this that a correct response to "Cheer up [pointless and unjustified endearment], it might never happen" might be a terse, "it just did".

My own experience is that after ten years of working retail part-time, I automatically smile at people (or at least pull the corners of my mouth upward) as a reflex action. Of course, the smile never quite makes it to the eyes unless I'm actually enjoying myself. If I'm genuinely smiling, it's a pretty rare thing - and in and of itself, that's sad, because the constant social pressure to pretend happiness for the social comfort of others (mostly male, but not exclusively so) means I sometimes have actual difficulty recognising when I'm genuinely happy, rather than just feigning it to get by.

Commanding someone to smile so *you* feel comfortable takes away that person's true smile, and devalues the act of smiling in and of itself. There are lots of reasons why a person might not be smiling - ranging from the trivial to the mortally important (have a read of "My Last Duchess" by Robert Browning, and tell me the narrator's second wife wouldn't be wary of smiling too often). Is your social comfort so very important, in context?

The real head-scratcher is not why straight women prefer jerky men to non-jerky men. It's why they don't prefer being alone to being with jerky men.

Dick nailed it.

Sometimes the best thing one person can do for another is just let them have their feelings.

How screwed up are we as a society that we would even need to be reminded of that idea?

RE:

snip
Smile and dress nice and act like a lady - and you will be considered to be a silly, thoughtless, insignificant girl. Don't smile and dress for comfort and you will be considered to be a ball-busting, man-hating lesbian bull-dyke - or, possibly, Ozzy Ozbourne. You will be called a trope, or a caricature feminist, or a reverse sexist, or a slut, or frigid. You will be said to have fucked too much, or in need of a good fucking, or your problem will lie in the fact that no one wants to fuck you, in which case you need a good fucking but are unlikely to get one. But no matter who you are, and what is wrong with you - because, mark my words, something is ALWAYS wrong with you -
snap

I've experimented with this subject extensively. You know what I discovered after years of dressing down, dressing up dressing for comfort dressing for grr, smiling not smiling walking around blank faced, refusing to make eye contact, making eye contact picking scratching laughing snarling in public (or not) ? it doesn't frikken matter what you do or don't do some asshat is going to have an opinion and likely voice it.

whats the remedy for personal comportment when out and about? Do what you feel feel like when you feel like how you feel like as long as you do it for you. Oh and its legal.

PS just so's you know? I've been called EVERY single one of those above mentioned things, and it doesn't seem to matter what I do or don't do. Guess what? It aint me... Its THEM. ASSHATS!

I just wanted to thank everyone for the comments here. They've been enlightening... to be honest I had never heard of anyone being ordered to smile outside of greeter/public relation jobs (chalk it up to youthful naivete, I suppose). With that in mind when I first read the post it struck me as an overreaction to something minor, but it's hard to argue with a few dozen women from all over with the exact same stories and reactions.

I don't know if I've ever been guilty of this behavior in my life (I hope not, though I am a cheerful person and tend to strive for that in others), but I will certainly watch for it in myself and others from here on out. Sincerely, thanks.

@32 I may be late to this party...but as a teenager my male teachers always told me to smile. If it's about a bad attempt at hitting on girls, that's even creepier.

I've noticed that since moving to the Northwest I get a lot less of that because no one likes to smile much.

Smiling in humans means the same thing as purring in cats: "I'm not a threat." Ordering someone to smile is a power play, pure and simple.

Fuck you, Jason. Fuck you right in the ear.

If one woman writes about something, it doesn't require the commiseration of every woman on the internet to make it valid. Her criticism would have been valid even if she had never allowed comments on this post. If it takes more than one woman speaking up to convince you that something it wrong, or for you to not consider it an "over reaction to something minor", then you are a huge asshat.

The reason Jason "has never heard anyone" (not "anyone" little tyke, it's WOMEN!) being ordered to smile is because he is not a woman, men don't hear women, men ignore women, it takes 5 women saying the same thing over and over to be heard once by a man. Even after women are magically heard, men put their concerns in the "does not happen to me" category which is filed with "does not happen at all to anyone" and "do not give a shit" files for future events commanding their mansplanation spews, of which this thread is not one of them. Jason HASN'T said anything I haven't heard a thousand times.

No, I will not. I'm having a really shitty day, and I therefore DEMAND that *you* scowl in solidarity!!!

Yeah, I was just thinking that "fuck you shithead, why aren't you scowling?!?!" would be a very reasonable response - though probably not safe for the workplace.

Isis-

Of course her criticism was valid. You missed my point entirely, though that was maybe my fault for not saying it well enough. As jc posted just after you, the reason I hadn't heard of anything like that is because I'm a man and it just doesn't happen to me (although implying that my ignorance makes me sexist seems unfair). All I was saying is that hearing about inappropriate behavior from one person makes you think "huh", but suddenly a whole lot of other people join the chorus and it hits harder. Sorry if I offended you. And I like my ears virginal, thanks!

Working in customer service positions, I smile a lot, all the time, at everyone, and yes, it often cheers me up to physically force smile even when I'm mildly not-in-a-good-mood. BUT even given that, it's no one else's business to remind me of something I already know (that smiling improves my mood) and which I could very well do on my own if I wanted to. Thank you very much.

What drives me crazy is that apparently smiling is not enough. Since I do smile (All. The. Time.) at work, I never get bothered about my facial expression. Instead, I get asked to approve of men's clothing choices, I get hit on by older men in front of their wives and children, etc. Smiling is just the start of unending demands for women to appease men by signaling their submissiveness etc. It's especially annoying to me that this happens when I'm in a position that typically precludes any honest response (lest I lose my job). A man who hits on a waitress or a cashier is engaging in a massive power play and is too insecure to hit on a woman who has no reason not to loudly reject him!

PS I'm wondering if Jason's comment really deserves such a negative response. Yes, there are a lot of problems with his assumptions that a multitude of voices is necessary for a woman's concern to be valid, etc., but considering the utter idiocy of Steve and Co.'s comments on this thread ... Jason is at least trying to listen. Even if he'd rather listen to a chorus than an individual.

I could be wrong, though, in which case I prefer living in my own blissful ignorance. ;)

You are wrong. It's great that you benefit from your ignorance, because nobody else does. If you're truly concerned that someone is unhappy, you should either ask what's wrong or, you know, actually do something to cheer them up. Do you really think that nobody would ever have the idea to smile without you there to remind them? Get over yourself. If they're not smiling, there's probably a good reason for it. Try being a good friend and figuring out what that reason is.

Kerry: "Ordering someone to smile is a power play, pure and simple."

Completely agree. Saying, in essence: "Nobody cares about what you think or feel, now put a bright face on and shut up" is a violent demonstration of power. From a random jerk in the street to a random woman passing ; from male boss to female employee ; but also (even if it's a less frequent situation) from female boss to female or male employee.

You missed my point entirely...

No, Jason. You failed to communicate it effectively and in a way that didn't make you look like a huge douchescrote. I get it, I get it. I'll give you a cookie for your epiphany, but you could have said, "Wow, I initially thought these were the experiences of one person. I didn't realize so many women experience this." That would have been less douchey. Instead, you chose, "...when I first read the post it struck me as an overreaction to something minor." You earned that fuck you, Brother. You really, really earned it.

Also, Ping , dudes.

Fair enough, Isis. My bad. I'm just glad we were able to clear it up.

HA HA HA HA.

My best friend works in a bookstore. One day I was sitting in an easy chair near the register while she was ringing some fratty douchebag out. She handed him his receipt and he said, "You should smile more." She said, "You should fuck off." Didn't miss a beat. He slunk away in disgrace. I cackled with glee.

So of course every so often I tell her she should smile more, and she kicks me in the nuts. What else are friends for?

Incidentally, there's a simple way to get a woman to smile. Smile at her! Failing that, just grab her face and yank the corners of her mouth up. Male privilege, right?

There was scene on a CSI episode where a female investigator with a huge grin on her face was carrying a bucket of bloody mucus. Her male coworker questioned her about her facial expression. She replied that smiling suppressed the gag reflex.
Maybe this is a good reason to obey orders to "Smile!"

The only good reason to obey orders to smile is if you have to do so to keep your job and you need the job to pay bills and survive till you can find a better job. The gag reflex should not be suppressed. The shoes should be puked on.

"Incidentally, there's a simple way to get a woman to smile. Smile at her! Failing that, just grab her face and yank the corners of her mouth up. Male privilege, right?"

I'd like to think we live in a world where no man would consider that to be a perfectly acceptable thing to do . I'd like to think that.

Failing that, just grab her face and yank the corners of her mouth up. Male privilege, right?

Of course you are joking, but the really funny part is that some men will indeed grab a woman who ignores his publicly-issued order to smile, to give him her number, etc. It has happened to me and to many women I know. I have also been spat on in the street for ignoring a cat-call, had the guy follow me for blocks telling me he was going to rape me, etc. All for not responding to a smile-order. If that doesn't show it's a power play, I wonder what will.

For all I know you're aware of all this, and that's why you made the joke (hard as it is to read for someone who has actually been there). But it looks to me like there are quite a few folks here in need of an education on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95P1P6t9dAw

sexist? inappropriate?

I would never ask a woman to smile, and I can't imagine anyone from my generation and peers doing such a thing, even in jest. But I think the gender flipside of this, that I experience all the time in my office where I am the only Dood is being asked, "what's wrong?" anytime I don't have a smile plastered on my face. And unless I smile and say, "oh, nothing." I better be prepared to spill all about my feelings and what's troubling me. I seriously was taken into my supervisor's office, to talk about what's bothering me. Women aren't the only people not allowed to scowl.

As SKM and I were addressing on another thread from today, when a feminist says that "such and such is an example of sexism against women" that never means that it never happens to men -- it just has very different gender/power dynamics when that's the case. And of course men have their own grievances about expectations that are onerous. No one is denying that.

For just one thread, however, it would be nice to be able to talk about and analyze an example of sexism without having to spend half the time listening to men complain that their concerns aren't being addressed.

Thank you for this post, I find the whole "you should really smile" thing incredibly annoying. I have been told this a lot recently because I am visibly pregnant and apparently a non-smiling pregnant woman is horrifying to the rest of the world. Never mind that I am still vomiting and nauseous every minute of every day... I am pregnant and must therefore appease the world by looking happy at all times.

Also if another random d00d so much as thinks about touching my belly without asking I am going to kick their nuts so far up your ass they will shit them out. Being pregnant does not make me public property.... don't touch me!

"Smile? You know what makes me smile? You know those Funniest Home Videos where some dude is always getting racked in the gregsack? Yeah, that."

SKM, I apologize if I stirred up some unpleasant feelings. I tend to be a little bitter about this subject; I grew up with three sisters in a religious community that taught women should be seen and not heard. My mother and younger sister are still trapped in it, and probably always will be. When I think of the advantages over my sisters I was unconditionally and nakedly granted, it's a wonder I didn't turn out a complete bastard. Most men don't notice that kind of inequality, though, which can be as simple as parents listening to their son at the dinner table but talking over their daughters. If you're never aware of it, you might think yourself entitled to it. I'll admit I never noticed it until after I'd gotten out. Only then did I actually become friends with my sisters and had some honest conversations about their very different experience at home that shocked and disturbed me, and ultimately changed my life. Now I work for a coalition of non-profits that help abused women in the same place I grew up. Funny how the wheel turns.

Hazel8500 wrote this: "...it doesn't frikken matter what you do or don't do some asshat is going to have an opinion and likely voice it."

One evening after work (around 10:30) I went to the post office to get my mail. As I was going through it and tossing the junk mail in the trash can I man came in and said "hey there good looking." Despite it being late and there being no one else there I spoke (without thinking) and said "That is not an appropriate comment" and continued sorting my mail. He then asked if I'd rather he had called me ugly. I explained very calmly that ANY comment he might make on my appearance was inappropriate.

After years of just ignoring that kind of crap I finally was assertive and did so without profanity or a hostile tone. I felt a HUGE relief and decided that if it ever happens again I'll do the same, but for my safety I'll try to only go to the post office during typical hours.

Thanks for the posst Zuska!
Recently, I was recommended to 'keep smiling', and felt very uneasy about it. It made me concerned it was me doing something 'incorrect, that I was not being friendly and thus maybe not approachable. When I am concentrating, I frown, and I am concentrating 98% of the time.
What a different perspective I gained today, and I realize now, correct.

I think there are some regional aspects to how we behave in public. Personal space is respected in different ways in different areas.
For the most part though, it seems to me that men assume they have the right to demand your attention in order to instruct you to perform for them no matter where they are. They call it being friendly. I call it asshattery.

I am particularly delighted when they proceed to share their judgment of the smile they have been grudgingly awarded.
I used to wonder if they were judging your age like a horse or if they were maybe looking for a good dentist.
About forty years ago I realized they are testing your willingness to perform on command for strangers. Creepy.

I'm 'way late to this party, but....

It is probably true that not all commands by a man for a woman to smile, are intended in a sexist, power-demonstrating way; however, it is certain that many are.

When a guy can tell me that a woman once told him to smile, or his dick will fall off...then we'll talk.

*sigh* Grammar fail. Make that, "or his dick would fall off".

Thanks for the link!

I went to that post and fixed the internal links, so they work now. Unfortunately, nothing will fix the links going to other people's blogs... those blogs are gone, gone, gone now, alas.

I wonder if there's a regional aspect to it? In my experience (upper Midwest) it's more often women telling me to smile than men. There's a sexist component there, perhaps, not in the pejorative sense but in the sense that women are expected to be perkier than men and thus more prone to this sort of nauseating chipperness -- and consequently, a certain subset of women grows up thinking they ought to be perky and try to cheer people up. Or maybe in smiley and passive-aggressive Minnesota, we're just more likely to be smiling in the first place, whether we're happy or not, so only the extra-perky folks are willing to actually break the social barrier and comment on someone's unhappy appearance. Dunno. I'm certainly glad that I've never been told to smile by a boss. That would be awkward, especially as I do not have a customer-facing job. (If I did, I would see the value of a smile; as any car salesman knows, smiles are useful.)

I'm an introvert, and somewhat contemplative by nature. And after years and years of being told, "Smile! Yer so purdy! Smile, purdy girl!" by guys in the grocery store (and at work, at the mechanic's, at the mall, at the hospital for God's sake!), I hit upon the perfect reply (which also works for the morons who tell me to "Have a blessed/nice day").

I say, "Thank you, but I have other plans."

However, I haven't been told to "SMILE!" in months. Seems that the Boston metro area is far less SMILEY than the southeastern Georgia area.

I'm a male and I get told to smile all the time (usually by women, actually I can't think of a time a man has told me to smile), and I really hate it. I always assume the person is just trying to be nice, but I still get pissed off and the last thing I do in response is to smile. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who hates being told to smile.

However, none of your top reasons why men ask women to smile could apply to the people asking me to smile since I am a man. I'd like to know, do you think that men asking women to smile is a completely different phenomenon than women asking men to smile?

In my completely uneducated opinion, there is no reason to believe that most of the men who ask women to smile don't do it for the same non-sexist reasons that women ask men to smile, whatever those reasons might be. Of course, I'm sure its true that men are more likely to tell women to smile, and this difference probably comes from the reasons you gave, but seeing as women do also tell men to smile, is it right to assume that your reasons are the "top" reasons?

I'd like to know, do you think that men asking women to smile is a completely different phenomenon than women asking men to smile?

Yes.

is it right to assume that your reasons are the "top" reasons?

Yes.

@Cara: But why? I mean I'm sure there are plenty of douche bags out there who tell women to smile because they are douche bags who think women should always be smiling and pretty. However, if there are also women who tell men to smile, doesn't that prove that there might be other, non-sexist, reasons that a man might tell a women to smile? The same reasons that women tell men to smile sometimes? Why is it OK to just assume that men are saying it for one of the OP's reasons?

Like I said, I hate being told to smile no matter what the reason. I think its rude (especially from a stranger), but I suspect there are plenty more, less harmful, reasons that it happens.

I have been told to 'smile!' by both men and women.
The women were usually coworkers who seemed to say it to interrupt me from my scowl-thoughts (you know, when you think about something to do with your thesis or some paper and your face naturally scowls). The men were always strangers - and it was *always* intimidating.

However, if there are also women who tell men to smile, doesn't that prove that there might be other, non-sexist, reasons that a man might tell a women to smile? The same reasons that women tell men to smile sometimes? Why is it OK to just assume that men are saying it for one of the OP's reasons?

Because they usually are. Now we're not playing "but whyyyyyy" anymore.

Now that I have obtained (through sheer endurance and dumb luck)an age that is considered LESS RAPE-ABLE by my Male Overlords I am no longer ordered to smile on command, thus becoming their geisha of the instant.

For that I am grateful. Ever, ever so grateful.

For those Male Overlords that don't "get it", after repeated tellings and re-tellings I hope you know what you can do with your massive refusal to understand the fucking glaringly obvious.

Way back in comment 79...

David, are they telling you to smile?

No. Random strangers don't talk to me or any other random strangers of either sex, because that's not done anywhere I've lived so far. I was trying to express my culture shock.

Does this mean that if someone I'm paying to teach me social skills (for Asperger's) tells me I need to learn to smile all the time so people won't be uncomfortable, I should fire them and find someone else?

Well, yeah.

And unless I smile and say, "oh, nothing." I better be prepared to spill all about my feelings and what's troubling me. I seriously was taken into my supervisor's office, to talk about what's bothering me.

if another random d00d so much as thinks about touching my belly without asking

What the fuck. You get touched by random strangers!?!

What the fuck. You get touched by random strangers!?!

That falls under the Fair Use of Women Doctrine, David. Just a little *bonus* to stand beside the actual raping and harassment; that way we feel *lucky* when our interaction with strangers doesn't lead to worse than an unwanted touch.

I don't think I have ever met a woman who hasn't had her physical space invaded by a random dude (unwanted touching, being cornered, groped, etc). Unless you live in solitude all the time it is bound to happen.

I had a two-fer today. I was told to smile and my hair was touched, at the DMV by a random douche.

David@
"because that's not done anywhere I've lived so far"
I'll fix that for you. "because that's not done TO ME OR TO MEN I KNOW anywhere I've lived so far"

I was listening to some Radiohead and walked past a pub to get home. I got a "smile, love, it may never happen" and I ignored and they yelled "SLUT" after me. I got home, looked up the telephone number of the bar and rang barman to complain.
"I don't have to put up with that sort of abuse, mate."
"You're quite right, I'll have a word."
*
I was walking to the supermarket and a charity-mugger (the guys who try to get your bank details for a charity), did it to me. I fixed him with a stony stare and shook my head really slowly. It felt totally unnatural and bitchy just to hold a facial expression.

It felt totally unnatural and bitchy just to hold a facial expression.

I know what you mean. What a world we live in, right?

Whoa, the commenters are right: I AM qualified to question the experience of total strangers! Nobody has the right to tell ME things that don't directly reinforce my own limited and unexamined perspective! I mean, I'm a MAN! Eat paragraphs of righteous blather, Zuska!

Thanks guys, forgot I had a penis for a moment there.

You Femsplainers Just See Sexism Everywhere

thusspakezuska — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:05:34 +0000

You Femsplainers Just See Sexism Everywhere

Over at the mansplaining thread, you can read literally hundreds of hilarious, annoying, frustrating, heartbreaking stories of how women are constantly subjected to intrusive, incessant, insensitive, inane mansplaining. Interspersed you will also find comments from d00dly d00ds whinging away about how awful it is that women are talking so MEAN about men, and their mansplanations about how mansplaining doesn't exist. Then some douche tried to coin the phrase femsplaining.

Femsplaining, as best I can tell, is a phenomenon that arises in the following manner:

(1) A woman points out an instance of sexist behavior by some d00d.
(2) D00d becomes angry and hurt because women are not supposed to notice this shit, and/or he is a good guy, and/or he refuses to comprehend the issue.
(3) D00d has heard the phrase "mansplainer" but what it actually means he cannot/will not comprehend.
(4) D00d concludes it is just what women call men when they don't like what they hear. Perhaps they are trying to silence all men, oh noes!
(5) Furthermore, sometimes women are rude. This totally makes them femsplainers! In fact, isn't it kind of rude and sexist to call a man a mansplainer?

And that's a perfect circle, ladeez. You are not supposed to notice sexist behavior, and everything in our society is carefully designed to help you understand and accept it as natural and just the way things are and evolution and the battle of the sexes and God's will and girls like pink and boys love trucks and men are better at spatial hoo-hah and women are so verbal and boys will be boys and act like a lady and don't be a slut and men can't help themselves and blah blah blah. If you should, by some amazing effort of will and education, manage to pull the curtain aside, there will be a great show of smoke and fire and booming voices declaiming from a huge green glaring disembodied head "pay no attention to that patriarchy behind the curtain!" Because, well, you might notice that it's a humbug.

And the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers and pulling the curtain back around and hoping no one's noticed anything because they are afraid that what's been exposed as a sham and a humbug is their personhood, rather than the patriarchy. Well, you as a person are not a humbug. But yes, it is true - d00dly masculinity is a sham and a humbug, so you will have to give that up and find something better to replace it with. There are better sorts of masculinity to build your identity around - for example, the kinds that don't depend upon a dual core processor of homophobia and misogyny. On your journey to that better version of masculinity, you'll need to work on your brain, heart, and courage. You could do worse than simply start by listening to these words from Skeptifem:

I wish the dudes would just listen instead of trying to argue away our experiences. As if any of us ever unthinkingly jumped into feminism, because its so easy and popular. Most of us jumped through some pretty silly mental hoops trying to make mansplaining into something else, because it is difficult to conclude that patriarchy is a real problem. Rationalizing some form of oppression is a shared experience, we have all done it at some point. You are signing up to get treated like shit in a whole new way when you become a feminist, and you actually have to try and do something about the situation instead of sitting back and accepting the world as is. Nothing makes me angrier than women being told that they didn't go through something when they most certainly did. What dudes need to understand is that a non feminist dude perspective is what we are all saturated in, every day. It is pretty fucking impossible to alert us of it when you cannot avoid hearing it every single day. Feminist opinion has to be sought out, examined because of its distance from the mainstream. Just learning to speak up was a huge challenge for me, I would assume by default that I was not worth listening to. There are so many pieces of myself that I had to fight for that men get for free. They should listen when women talk; we had to earn it.

UPDATE: Spelling errors corrected, thanks to SKM for pointing them out. As a little bonus, enjoy this episode of How It Should Have Ended. (Annoying commercial at the start, unfortunately.)

thusspakezuska Sun, 03/14/2010 - 04:05

Tags

Categories

Zuska, on the back of another great post, I just wanted to say how much I really enjoy your blog and the perspective it gives me.

And now... I'm off back behind the curtain to pull the levers!

That quote from skeptifem really is one for the ages.

One little thing: you have "mansplaining" misspelled as "mainsplaining" (and "mainsplanations") throughout the first paragraph. It's only a matter of time before trolls enjoy that one way too much!

I'm off back behind the curtain to pull the levers!

Hhmmm...I think the pulling of the levers is by the folks who want to maintain the status quo...or is that what you mean?

I am trying to imagine a male version of Zuska in a world saturated with anti-male sexism. In what ways would her arguments be different (if at all)? In what ways would they be the same?

SKM, I wish I had been that clever...alas, I was writing late last night and just too tired to catch my spelling errors. They are corrected now...I think I caught them all.

Queef, if you could actually seriously contemplate that thought experiment it might be somewhat helpful. Of course, you would first have to seriously contemplate a world saturated with anti-male sexism and all the implications and ramifications for men. Maybe you could just try the real-world experiment of paying attention to and understanding its current configuration misogyny and sexism and homophobia? No? Imagining whole new worlds is easier? Okay.

Actually, if one pays serious attention to the degree of homophobia that is linked to misogyny, you could make a decent argument that there is plenty of "anti-male" sentiment already in existence in our present world, without having to conjure new ones up in our imaginations. I'd wager it's just not the kind of anti-male sentiment you have in mind, though.

I've been mansplained that the reason for a girl pinup poster in my workplace was because the decorating d00d LOVVVVED women. Except like a houseplant that's not supposed to talk back much less take a stand about taking it down (and I did), I disagreed and pointed out that hanging women on the wall shows the viewing audience (men and women) that the d00d objectifies women so no one thinks he's gay. Of course, in typical mansplain fashion (pages were ripped straight from the Derail textbook), I was told by another d00d, I could hang some Chippindales on the wall and no one would be offended. Um, no.

I just noticed how the "great and powerful" Oz called Dorothy and friends "ungrateful creatures" when she told him to keep his promises to her. The Others are expected to be grateful and "lucky to be given audience" by the douche. Oh, when the curtain of privilege comes down, there's nothing to see alright.

SKM linked to this on Shakes. It's fab. One thing I have to learn is to pick my mostly-losing battles. I have yet to meet a d00d who when confronted on his mansplaining and privilege bullshit fesses up and says he's a humbug.

http://kateharding.net/2010/03/10/cultivate-your-inner-samuel-l-jackson/

"And the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers and pulling the curtain back around and hoping no one's noticed anything because they are afraid that what's been exposed as a sham and a humbug is their personhood, rather than the patriarchy"

As a man, I'd say that it gets a bit tiring. Yes, I support feminists and women rights. However, such over-reactions only ridicule feminists.

here da problem: many women want to be treated like whole rounded human beings, while most men would be perfectly content to be treated purely as sex objects... but in the real world it's all backasswords.

the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers

If you really meant that, then I am truly in awe of your superhuman ability at double-entendre.

Zuska Spake: "And the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers and pulling the curtain back around and hoping no one's noticed anything because they are afraid that what's been exposed as a sham and a humbug is their personhood..."

Tree sez: OMG, yes! One only needs to witness, not even point out, the tiniest mistake or faux pas and watch the psychotic fugue begin. I saw it the other week, trapped in a dead end in a new parking garage, backing out just like the car in front of me until the car behind decided that he'd had Enough With The Backing Out and had to leap out of his car to 'splain that 'YOU DON'T JUST BACK UP' (my mistake for assuming that since his SUV was twice the height of my hybrid that he was actually paying attention to what was happening with the car in front of mine) until he noticed out of the corner of his eye that yeah, it was a dead end with no free parking, and gosh, he'd just made a ass of himself. Then he dashed back to his SUV, threw it into reverse and tore out of there. Oh noes!! Caught making a mistake! The sequence of emotions was clear: Superiority and contempt, confusion, dawning awareness of the real situation, recollection of his Waiting Audience, shame of exposure and then rage that someone could see his mistake.

I've seen this reaction hundreds of times. "Frantic" doesn't begin to describe the acrobatics.

I really enjoyed all the mansplainers explaining why mansplaining doesn't exist. It was so beautiful and they weren't even aware of it. Though very quickly my amusement turned to banging my head on the wall.

I was mansplained to just the other day by my dad. I told him I got a new long leash for my dog. He proceeded to caution me for about five minutes about being careful to not get the leash wrapped around a tree, and be careful, the dog could get tangled up, and the leash could get wrapped around something and....(on and on and on). I said something about being aware of that. Because, what, I've never walked a dog in the woods before? It's never occurred in my stupid little head that a long line might get wrapped around a large stationary object? What did he thing was going to happen, the dog and I were going to end up on opposite sides of the tree and we would just look at each other mournfully, unable to figure out a way out of this predicament until we died?

while most men would be perfectly content to be treated purely as sex objects...

Ask the men in prison how true that is...

Oh! YOU meant "treated as sex objects by women I find attractive and want to fuck". Because that's JUST EXACTLY how is is for women every day! We're all surrounded, all day, every day, by attractive, kind, non-smelly, non-sexist, intelligent, funny, respectful men who just want to share their bodies with us in whatever way we want to do that! And if we don't want to, that's fine with them and they wish us a nice day and get on with their lives! They never follow us down the street calling us names or rape us or...

Dumbass.

The best part is that the fucking douchebag's name is "Jacques".

As a man, I'd say that it gets a bit tiring. Yes, I support feminists and women rights. However, such over-reactions only ridicule feminists.

Alex Besogonov, I'd say that it gets a bit tiring to hear "yes I support feminists...however..." I suppose you only support the REAL feminists. You know, the ones who don't annoy men and give feminism a bad name. Go home and think a little harder.

@David #8:

the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers

If you really meant that, then I am truly in awe of your superhuman ability at double-entendre.

Heh heh heh!

Can Zuska post without relying on childish insults and the word "d00d?" Or is that just how she copes with her life?

Oh, and I've never once said that I'm actually against your core argument. You've just assumed.

"Can Zuska post without relying on childish insults and the word "d00d?" Or is that just how she copes with her life?"

Accusations of childishness from someone whose internet handle means "an expulsion of air from the vagina"?

You have my sympathies; it must be so terribly, terribly hard being a wealthy American enjoying the plunder of empire.

Dan: If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you seem to be suggesting that white, middle-class feminists need to shut up since there are people in the world who are worse off than we are.

Problem is, one of the core messages of feminism is to question the patriarchal hierarchies that relegate certain people to the status of the "Other" to maintain the privileges of the few. Feminist theorizing is directly involved in questioning a status quo that allows colonization to continue -- be it colonization of goods, lands, or bodies.

The colonization of women's bodies by men is a particularly useful way to understand how patriarchy functions, and that can be extended to understanding how empire functions.

HOWEVER, it is extremely frustrating to be constantly told by men that feminists' concerns about sexism have to be ignored until everything else in the world is made better. No one can be fighting everything that is unjust all the time. And sometimes women who daily face a system that devalues us and compels us to accept patriarchal logic, roles, and values, we need to speak about it, to resist it, and to point out that this monolithic system that most people do not even notice is, indeed, extremely unjust.

Why do you feel that it is necessary for feminists to ignore any injustice based on gender because there are other injustices in the world? There is an implicit assumption in your post that all injustices are prioritized and that only the "top" one on the list deserves attention at any one time. How do you determine what the "most important" injustice is?

"Why do you feel that it is necessary for feminists to ignore any injustice based on gender because there are other injustices in the world?"

I don't. I do however feel that if you're a privileged westerner then without a certain degree of self-examination - a self-examination which seems utterly missing from this blog, though I'm not a regular reader so perhaps I missed something when scanning the archives - blogs like this become little more than poor-me-bellyaching. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this blog is "questioning a status quo that allows colonization to continue -- be it colonization of goods, lands, or bodies" but if so, can you me point toward some evidence of that? Because whilst what you say is true, in practice - and rather unsurprisingly - that examination all too often stops at the point where oppression turns into privilege.

a self-examination which seems utterly missing from this blog, though I'm not a regular reader so perhaps I missed something when scanning the archives

I'd say you have missed a lot. If you care to, you can read more. But asking others to "point to the evidence" for you is your privilege talking.

Dear God! It had NEVER occurred to me before Dan pointed it out that peoples are oppressed around the globe! Of course, patriarchy has NOTHING to do with that oppression. Nothing at all.

I am so ashamed of myself. Not thinking of others, like a proper woman should, and disrespectfully mocking heteronormative masculinity in an ill-advised move to act as if I have a right to use language in any way other than the socially proscribed manner for women. Queef is right. What the hell is wrong with me?

Truly I am blessed that Dan has taken time out of his busy schedule of handwringing over the failure of U.S. feminists to save the world's oppressed, to stop by my poor blog and help me see the error of my ways. It is a heavy burden, no doubt - clearly he has not had time to actually read this blog, as he says, and yet he has generously shared his opinion with me nonetheless.

Gentleman readers, take note: your brethren have set some amazing standards for you to live...up to. Ask yourselves: am I helping my female colleagues as much as Dan and Queef are helping Zuska with her blogging? Could I possibly be doing just as good, or better, than they are? Am I making sure to tell the ladies what they should and should not say, what they should and should not concern themselves with? Am I making sure to observe and censure and criticize and give my opinion at every chance? Am I making sure to let her know that what she thinks or is doing is probably wrong in some fashion, or could be done better, or differently? Am I, in short, helping her to be constantly aware of her place?

If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then congratulations. You are well on your way to being a d00dly mansplainer.

Am I making sure to tell the ladies what they should and should not say, what they should and should not concern themselves with? Am I making sure to observe and censure and criticize and give my opinion at every chance?

Well, the mansplainer thread is pushing 400 comments now--based on that and on experience, the answer in far too many cases is YES.

It's also pretty funny that plenty of the "evidence" that Dan demands be pulled from the archives for his is right on the front page, no archive-diving needed.

I guess scrolling and reading are too much work.

I find the argument that "well your oppression isn't as bad as that of others so kwityerbitchin" to be the most delightfully simpleminded one yet.

I'll concede that the deprived masses of [insert your favorite third world slum that you feel very deeply for but have never actually visited or taken any substantive action to help here] suffer in a very different way from relatively privileged white middle class women in the US or Western Europe. That doesn't negate the fact that those women are still experiencing discrimination, sexism, harassment, and worse.

All suffering is relative. That makes it no less important to each person experiencing it.

As a practical matter it makes more sense to focus on addressing the wrongs that you can have an immediate impact upon than to exclusively advocate on ones that you cannot.

All that said, pretty much every feminist or feminist minded person I've known has been as interested, informed, and passionate about the rights of Others the world around as they are in the more immediate and pressing concerns that affect their daily lives. But I'm sure that's just a fluke.

I am trying to imagine a male version of Zuska in a world saturated with anti-male sexism.

That would be any men's rights activist in the matriarchal USA.

Rev Matt,

... @23 " pretty much every feminist or feminist minded person I've known has been as interested, informed, and passionate about the rights of Others the world around as they are in the more immediate and pressing concerns that affect their daily lives"

Bang on, but we can expand that... In my own experience, the women I talk to are generally more compassionate than men, on average, and far more likely to worry about the misfortunes of others than men are (which may be one reason we have a patriarchy). So it seems like a big waste of time to point it out to women, which brings me on to...

Dan,

@19... your point is not logical. The argument (truth!) is that men are more privileged than women in any culture. Therefore, to point out there are cultures more impoverished than than our own does not negate the point that in EVERY culture men are more privileged than women.

Ginger,

@16... I didn't know that there was a word for that! I live and learn!

the women I talk to are generally more compassionate than men, on average, and far more likely to worry about the misfortunes of others than men are (which may be one reason we have a patriarchy--DiGz

I think it's more likely to be the other way around: women have to be more attuned to the feelings of others because of patriarchy. Generally, marginalized folks are more aware of the experience of the dominant class than vice versa (e.g. black people don't need white people to "offer a white perspective"--they've been soaking in that white perspective all their lives). If you don't have social power, it's a matter of survival to know how those with power over you think and feel. That skill can then be extended to those with less power, of course.

I just don't buy that women are marginalized as an inevitable result of our naturally being too darn nice. I know you weren't taking it that far, DiGz, but a lot of people do; IME it is a common and convenient way of defending the status quo.

SKM,

interesting point. Yeah, and to be clear, I wasn't implying that it's women's fault!

At the risk of going slightly off topic (sorry Zuska) but do you think there are any innate differences between the genders? I think women in general are more empathetic and, therefore, more compassionate than men; and I have an easier time, on average, rationalising thoughts and feelings when talking with women than I do men (obviously, I'm generalising greatly here). It feels to me as though some of that is a difference in nature between the genders.

That said, I do agree that marginalised folks need to be more sensitive (apart from you evil, testicle-eating feminists of course!). I've had some experiences that have left me feeling like that and it's certainly made me more sensitive to the feelings of others.

DiGz, it really is off-topic, so I don't want to get into it. But I'd say three things: 1) We are not at the point where we can dissect innate/genetic vs. cultural differences, no matter how it "feels" to us; 2) It doesn't matter from the point of view of social justice: equal doesn't mean identical; 3) There may very well be average innate differences in behavior between the sexes, but the variation within each group is greater than the variation between them.

...and I have an easier time, on average, rationalising thoughts and feelings when talking with women than I do men

That's more socialization than anything. Who comforted you (I mean, the general population YOU) when you fell down as a child? Mom. To whom did you make your kindergarten valentine? Mom. Even for Dads that loved their children very much, and were not afraid to be gentle and tender, the emotional is still considered the domain of the Mom.

In the workplace where as a woman I notice the guys open up a lot more to me emotionally than they do to one another I think it is part of that (I am their Mother, their Sister, I am the comforting emotionally supportive female representative rather than the Dad that told them to stop crying or the Male in their lives who called them a baby when they talked about their feelings).

But also it is because I am not competing with them. The other dudes don't want to open themselves up because the work life is like a wolf pack of baboon pack. There's an alpha male and there's everyone else in the hierarchy. They risk losing their place if they expose a point of weakness. So the fact that these dudes can open up with me and not be afraid to expose their weaknesses is because I am not seen as a part of the pack. They do not see me as a challenge to take over their place.

So while sometimes I am honored that guys can sit down and be nice to me and not be afraid to be encouraging or polite I know that behind it all as the patriarchy that forbids them from acting the same with other guys. And that though they are nice fellows and don't even realize what they are doing this is why. So DiGz I know that's not on your conscious mind when you sit down with the women you talk to, and I'm not suggesting you not look to female friends for the kind of support you're able to get there, just realize it's not about women being better about this sort of thing it's about women not even having a place in the pack.

"Alex Besogonov, I'd say that it gets a bit tiring to hear "yes I support feminists...however..." I suppose you only support the REAL feminists. You know, the ones who don't annoy men and give feminism a bad name. Go home and think a little harder. "

Nope. I support all kind of feminists, just on general principles that ANYONE should be given the same chances and the same treatment. Even if you are a flaming -ist (Communist, Feminist, Harpist - I don't care).

However, is it so hard to understand that it's easy to make a sexism, since your language (English is not my native language) itself is loaded with them?

Also, your over-generalization: "And the d00ds are frantically jerking the levers and pulling the curtain back around..." is about as true as 'all women are stupid'.

You are in essence asking men to apologize for each and every sexism. Yet you yourself don't seem to be able to understand that not all men (by far, not all) are thinking about women solely as objects. Even if we do commit a sexism sometimes, most likely unwittingly.

That lack of middle ground is what causes problems for some feminists.

Alex--

Nobody here is disputing that it is easy to make sexist (and racist, and other bigoted) remarks. That doesn't justify doing so. It means that it's reasonable to say "I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking, I won't do it again" if someone points out that you're being sexist (for values of "you" that include the human race, not specifically you Alex Besogonov). That's very different from "It's not my fault, English is a sexist language" or "Lighten up, it's no big deal, everyone uses those phrases." It's a problem partly because so many people use them. If one random person in the entire English-speaking world occasionally made anti-Etruscan remarks, it might not matter. When lots of people do something, it usually does. (It might be good, bad, or just interesting, but it's probably not random.)

Since English isn't your first language, you may not realize that "d00d" as used here doesn't mean "male human being," it refers to specific sorts of sexist men.

Also, saying that you support feminists because you support all human beings isn't really different from saying that you don't support feminists. I'm in favor of human rights: that doesn't mean I will announce that I support groups that I'm neutral about (say, Norwegians) or disagree with, disapprove of, or fear (say, Republican politicians). And remarks of the form "I support X, but" are usually disclaimers, ways of attacking X and trying not to be criticized for it (like "some of my best friends are Jewish" or "I'm not trying to be racist, but"). Sometimes that works as cover, and sometimes it will produce a (perhaps unstated) "thanks for the warning that a prejudiced remark is coming" or "I know you're not trying to be sexist, you're good at it without trying."

Stop making your 'argument' be "You just don't get it! You just don't geeeeeeeeeeet it!" and maybe someone will listen. Time and again I see users trying to engage a discussion here and on other sites only to be told they're sexist for even questioning anything. Okay, great, you have a perspective that others don't understand. Now show your argument. Using letters in place of zeros does not count.

It's like dealing with fucking creationists who just want to throw out a fucking Gish Gallop.

Yeah, stop being such hysterical, whining, irrational bitches!

It doesn't matter how many times a man challenges and ignores your experience, you still should politely listen to his POV, which is very interesting and important and you have never considered. Especially if he is calling you out on the content of your blog, which he didn't read.

Okay, great, you have a perspective that others don't understand. Now show your argument.

How about listening the first thirty million times? Or reading the thirty-million Feminist 101 pieces that DO explain it so we don't have to educate your ass?

Oh, wait. Our time is unlimited, and all at your disposal. Woman, the biological appliance.

Fuck off.

Yes, Cara, because you are making a number of claims and telling me I should believe them, I actually do view you as virtually nothing more than something that is merely at my disposal. No one has ever asked to be presented with reason except women. And always by men. Thank you for the education.

you still should politely listen to his POV, which is very interesting and important and you have never considered.

I'm asking for your point of view and why.

I haven't seen any woman make the argument that "You just don't get it". Some have certainly made similar observations in the context of explaining their point of view, but I've not seen that be the argument itself or evening a supporting argument. I've seen plenty of men ignoring the explanations and ascribing to others the arguments that they wanted to debate against.

To date I've only seen one user attempt to make a case for feminism. In fact, that is the only user that actually made me more aware of any sexism. It's almost like "reason and rationality" isn't just atheist rhetoric.

Are you seriously here looking for someone to make a case for feminism? Preliminary to discussing feminist issues?

I agree with Cara. Fuck off.

The comment Michael Hawkins links makes a good point. However, it's far from the first time I've seen that point raised--it's well-established feminist thought. Hawkins is confusing his not having heard certain arguments with those arguments not existing at all.

And I take it that one who thinks the "case for feminism" is questionable believes that women should not have the right to be persons under the law, to vote, to own things, to bring legal cases, etc. Or, he does not know what feminism is or know anything of its history. Either way I'm not wasting my time.

I have to explain why a specific statement is not accurate. I know. It's so sexist!

Hawkins is confusing his not having heard certain arguments with those arguments not existing at all.

No, I'm specifically referring to the lack of arguments presented in several threads here (and on my blog) in which I have participated or which have been about me.

The in-group mentality is fine and dandy, and no one expects any legitimate argument to be made on a site like this, but the "You don't geeeeeeeeeeeeeet iiiiiittttt!" screech doesn't work to actually make any points and potentially change minds. I mean, god damn it. Look at the eight million atheist sites (including mine) which relentlessly mock those who think otherwise. They still put forth arguments. All that ever shows up here is phonetic spelling, letters replaced with numbers, and people sitting around just really wishing a man would actually use a derogatory term ("Yeah, stop being such hysterical, whining, irrational bitches!" - wouldn't everyone just cream themselves if that actually happened?).

Okay, great, you have a perspective that others don't understand.

Hawkins, you pathetic little jagoff, just because *you* are too morally and intellectually subnormal to understand something doesn't mean that "others" don't. In fact, the theoretical and pragmatic foundations for the feminism being expounded on this blog are not very difficult to understand, by those who are not immature ego-deficient fuckwad furtive woman-hating masturbators.

Here's a hint, holmes: It's not "feminism's" fault that women are disgusted by you.

Isn't there some feminism 101 site you can visit, Michael? It seems you only know about Derailing for Dummies.

OK, Michael, I'll go. Not because you demand it -- and you are demanding, and yes, demanding things from women in the way you are doing, with lots of gendered insults like "screeching" is showing your privilege -- but because I don't mind doing some 101 education work.

I suggest that you go check out Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog. I think you'll find it helpful. But this blog is by and for feminists who are already secure in their feminism. Most people here do not want, need, or have any obligation to explain or defend feminism, to you or to anybody else. Demanding that we do so, after we've told you that we're not going to, is a display of privilege: we don't owe you an explanation, and you are acting as if we do. There are places where your questions are appropriate to ask, and this is not one of them. It's like walking into a conference on string theory and demanding that the scientists there explain momentum to you: when they don't want to, and ask you to leave, you shouldn't be surprised, and if you're rude about it (which you are being), don't be surprised if they're rude back.

So, if you actually want some education about feminism, then it is your responsibility to go out and get it, not ours to hand it to you. I have given you a resource, a starting point, because I like to do things like that. But that's all you're getting, and if you continue to come around here and make demands out of privilege and ignorance, you will only get more people telling you to fuck off. Go educate yourself instead of demanding that people who don't owe you anything spoonfeed it to you, or shut the fuck up.

"I am so ashamed of myself. Not thinking of others, like a proper woman should, and disrespectfully mocking heteronormative masculinity in an ill-advised move to act as if I have a right to use language in any way other than the socially proscribed manner for women."

Fuck me. You really are a cunt, aren't you. But, truth be told, I don't really give a fuck about the petty concerns of some spoilt, self-indulgent little yank fuck. The only reason I stumbled on this blog was because some twat included it in one of the ScienceBlog Select feeds but don't worry, I won't be visiting your woe-is-me wankfest again.

"asking others to "point to the evidence" for you is your privilege talking."

Are you fucking mental?

When I think "screeching", I think children. I don't equate children with gender, but you're welcome to do so.

Your link doesn't work.

Also, your analogy applies to most of the crap Franks puts up here, but not to these sort of threads. Posts which specifically criticize other people ought to be free for some actual discussion beyond "You don't get it". Hell, I called out a cancer quack (Andreas Moritz) on my blog and gave him a number of responses even though my focus was more or less to call him stupid and dangerous (both of which are true, incidentally).

Fine, the URL is http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/, as I cannot seem to get it to work. I assume there's some sort of anti-spam measure in place.

And when you've read it, maybe you'll see why "screeching" is gendered, the problem with infantilizing women, and why you demanding that we explain things to you is privileged behavior regardless of what the topic of the post is. I doubt it, though, since you seem unwilling to actually examine your privilege, preferring to blindly defend it by ignoring its existence.

And now I am done being generous enough to give you anything.

Oh, and Michael? You are aptly demonstrating why most of the people here are unwilling to give you what you're demanding: You're a jackass when you "ask" for it, and you're a jackass when it's given to you. Why would we want to give you anything at all?

(I only bothered because I enjoying showing off what I know.)

Michael Hawkins: To date I've only seen one user attempt to make a case for feminism.

Why on earth would you expect anyone to make a case FOR feminism? I thought you claimed to be a scientist? Surely as a scientist you realise that the idea that all human beings are pretty much the same is actually the null hypothesis. You don't need evidence to accept the null hypothesis, you need evidence to reject it.

No one has to justify treating people the same. It's those who believe that certain categories of people deserve less respect than other categories who need to back that up with evidence and argument.

Michael Hawkins: The case for feminism has been made multiple times over the past century or so. What you're asking for is for the various commenters and regulars on this blog to complete your history homework for you. The problem is, you're not asking nicely, and you're not even offering to do their chemistry homework in return.

However, since I'm the kind of sucker who was always giving my peers help in class, here's a few terms to google: suffragette; "Votes for Women"; Emmeline Pankhurst; first wave feminism; second wave feminism. Plug those into your search engine and have a bit of a read of what comes up. But you'll have to do the reading yourself, I'm afraid.

Hawkins, I know it's very difficult to see oneself clearly as others do when you are just a callow undergrad, particularly an awkward and frustrated one like you. But I'm a really nice guy, so I'm gonna help you out.

No one is impressed by your logical skeptical rational d00d schtick. Even your massive throbbing logical skeptical rational d00d heroes that you try to emulate look down at pathetic suck-ups like you with disgust.

Believe me, we've all been through the feeling of intoxication at learning new ideas when we are just beginning to throw off the shackles of adolescence and experience the freedom of manhood, and we've all let that intoxication get to our heads and behave in an embarrassing fashion, ineffectually bashing others over the head with those new ideas that we so enamored with. But the thing you need to get through your head is that you are letting yourself fall into the trap of remaining a third-rate derivative simplistic thinker because you feel like a big fish in your third-rate-college pond.

People much smarter than you have tested their ideas in much more stringent environments than you. Do yourself a favor, and learn to respect yourself and the people around you. Misguided hero worship and emulation of massive throbbing logical skeptical rational d00dliness is a fool's game, and at the end of that game, you're gonna be left with nothing but entrenched bitterness at the raw hand you've been dealt.

SKM,

Fairy nuff on going off topic and to your point, I agree my thinking is driven by feelings which is hardly scientific and likely to be biased and blinkered. Which brings me back on topic... I wish there were more threads like this, not less, at Scienceblogs because they really have given me a perspective that I simply can't get elsewhere. I've always believed in the equality of every human being and look forward to the day that we're all treated equally and all have the same opportunities. However, these threads have made me realise that I've never really considered (or rather I've considered but rarely asked!) how inequality appears from the other side (i.e., not being in a position of privilege) and how my own behaviour may inadvertently be contributing to propogating that inequality. It's blogs like Zuska's and the thoughtful comments that really help me understand that. I can't tell you how many days I've spent pondering some of Zuska's posts trying to put my own behaviour in context. Digging deep into my own psyche, trying to strip out everybody's biases and coming to a conclusion how I can be a better human being actually does my head in.

FrauTech,

Thank you for that post, I found it incredibly thought-provoking. I've never thought of it that way before and much of what you write rings true to me. For very personal reasons, I'd like to see the presumption you allude to in the first paragraph change and that parents are treated as equally capable of emotionally supporting children, regardless of their gender. And if in saying that, I haven't extrapolated your point too far, your comments also put paid to the argument made by some men: that the point of these threads is ultimately about silencing/knocking men -- clearly, you're arguing for nothing more than equality. On your second paragraph, that reflects my experience. I'd say my dad was more emotionally open than my mum but in general, as a kid, I found women far more emotionally open than men and I'm sure that's led to how comfortable I feel discussing my feelings with either gender.

The bits I don't like are in the last two paragraphs. It's not the argument you're making there, which agains seems very plausible, but it's the conclusions I then draw from it that I don't like. You're right about the baboon pack (on occasion we'll even pull down our trousers and show off our arses!) being a barrier to emotional discussion for fear of showing weakness -- I feel it all the time. But in your final paragraph you say women don't have a place in the pack. And I agree with that. The thing is, I'd like to see the nature of the pack change and I was hoping that as women gain traction they'd bring more emotional intelligence and openness to the pack. From the points SKM and yourself are making, I'm not sure that will happen. I find that kind of depressing. Btw, to be very clear, I'm not saying that it's women's job to improve my lot emotionally, rather I'm asking if you think the nature of the pack will change or will women adapt to the nature of the pack as we move towards equality? I realise I'm going off topic again but I'd really love to get some further insight on that one.

The nature of the pack won't just magically change from the influence of women, in part because one of the ways that women succeed is to work for "honorary man" status. Marginalized folks often succeed by fitting in as much as possible with the existing structure. And keep in mind, the existing structure depends on there being a few marginalized folks at the top to point to and say "see, it's all fair and equal here".

In short, men have to change too in order for the pack to change. I think it's possible, if enough people (male and female) see what's in it for them to do things differently.

PhysioProf @52 is speaking words of crystalline truth that should be heard and heeded by undergrads everywhere.

My first full-time job out of undergrad was as a research technician at an institution in New York whose name rhymes with "Mockefeller Luniversity". I was fortunate enough to work on a project with the lab of a big shot Nobelist. This was not a humble man--I once heard him describe himself as "a cross between Newton and Einstein"--but when he did not know something, he said so, and asked someone who did know to fill him in, even if that someone was a lowly summer student from Columbia. A lot got done in his lab meetings.

I submit that this comment is not as off-topic as it may appear at first glance.

SKM,

"The nature of the pack won't just magically change from the influence of women, in part because one of the ways that women succeed is to work for "honorary man" status."

That's something I do hope changes over time and rather than women having to strive for honorary man status we can all just work towards equal human status. To achieve that, as you say men's attitudes have to change and that's what I worry about. There are men posting here that are way ahead of me but there are also plenty that don't even recognise the problem, let alone acknowledge they need to change or worse still hurl invective when merely asked to understand the problem (take note: Michael/Dan).

Dan @ 45

If you can't come up with someone more articulate to add to the conversation than calling someone a cunt, perhaps you should consider staying silent.

PhysioProf@52: You rock. That was a totally wonderful and amazing description of the onset of mansplation.

@DiGz: On the whole "changing the pack" idea. People don't change things that work for them. Privilege works better than lack of privilege (I've been rich and I've been poor...). If you really want equality, then you have to threaten your own unearned privledge (which is totally not fun at first but is awesome later) and you have to threaten the unearned privilege of others. They *will not* like this.

One sign that they are not liking it is they will call you names and say that you, yourself, are far too privileged to be challenging their privilege (see Dan). Another is they will argue that in order to challenge their privilege, you must first give them a convincing reason why they should allow you to challenge them in the first place (see Hawkins). One of the privileges of being privileged is being able to choose who challenges your privilege. That is the first privilege that must always be stomped on.

Hawkins is confusing his not having heard certain arguments with those arguments not existing at all.

I think he's confusing his not paying attention the dozens of times he's posted (in a pretty consistently hostile fashion, I might add) and been directed to material that could enlighten him with "not having heard", SKM.

Same old entitled crap. We don't drop everything and spoon-feed the poor baby when he throws a tantrum, so he projects his irrationality onto the other posters.

Dan @ 45

If you can't come up with someone more articulate to add to the conversation than calling someone a cunt, perhaps you should consider staying silent.

Oh, but Anon, if he stayed silent he couldn't tell us what he *thinks* (if you can call whatever erratic electrical impulses blat about in his largely vacant skull "thinking"). And that would be just tragic.

And when you've read it, maybe you'll see why "screeching" is gendered, the problem with infantilizing women, and why you demanding that we explain things to you is privileged behavior regardless of what the topic of the post is.

This is probably my number one issue with these sort of arguments. You're insisting that a particular term is related to gender and demeaning even though the intention is unrelated. What's more, your connotations are not my connotations. I'm not running around saying there are absolutely no sexist words that get bandied about unbeknownst to the user, but this is not a case of it.

This argument bothers me not because I hate women and want them to cook for me immediately before and after blowing me, but instead because 1) it runs counter to so much other philosophy, especially Kant's Good Will, and 2) I actually, genuinely care about language and how it gets used and abused. Deeming every other word offensive does not solve anything, as useful as that tactic can sometimes be.

I still see no case being made for why it's my privilege being shown when I ask for arguments; this is just another "You don't get it" piece.

I'm also not "infantilizing" women. I'm comparing the method of argument to that of children. The fact that women can make childish presentations as much as the next person is no fault of mine or any institutionalized manliness. Do you honestly think I would use the same term in relation to an average feminist philosopher? You (or at least others here) should take my term a little more personally.

Why on earth would you expect anyone to make a case FOR feminism? I thought you claimed to be a scientist? Surely as a scientist you realise that the idea that all human beings are pretty much the same is actually the null hypothesis.

I never claimed to have any particular status here, and certainly not scientist, but that wouldn't really matter. I'm referring to the philosophy of feminism. Unless I'm mistaken, philosophical writings usually contain arguments.

@ginger

Why are you wary of a natural bodily occurrence?

Dude. Nobody cares what "your problem" with feminism is, and you are not the All-Powerful Arbiter of language or anything else. The very idea that you think your off-topic nattering has any bearing on the discussion would be cute if you were a kid. But you're not, and it's not.

Either read the Fem 101 stuff to educate yourself or don't, but quit being such a nuisance. You don't know what you're talking about, so lurk more to get a handle on it and quit interrupting.

"This is probably my number one issue with these sort of arguments. You're insisting that a particular term is related to gender and demeaning even though the intention is unrelated. What's more, your connotations are not my connotations. I'm not running around saying there are absolutely no sexist words that get bandied about unbeknownst to the user, but this is not a case of it."

Michael, I think this reveals a lack of understanding on your part. Regardless of your intentions, your words do affect other people! And, since other people aren't mind readers, this effect is sometimes NOT what you intended, especially if you choose your words poorly. As you admit, your connotations are not universal. You don't get to choose how other people interpret your statements, and furthermore, you don't get to tell them that they can't be insulted, offended, or enraged by them. What you can do is make an effort to learn how other people interpret your statements so that you can ensure that your meanings and intentions get across.

Which I would suggest that you do.

Dude. Nobody cares what "your problem" with feminism is

No. My problem is with your ridiculous arguments, not feminism.

You don't get to choose how other people interpret your statements, and furthermore, you don't get to tell them that they can't be insulted, offended, or enraged by them.

But caricature feminists get to tell everyone else to curtail their language?

Wow, Michael, it's really funny how you whine and complain about us telling you you don't get it . . . but somehow, you just keep proving us right!

Michael Hawkins: Unless I'm mistaken, philosophical writings usually contain arguments.

So where are the philosophical arguments FOR patriarchy?

Michael Hawkins: I never claimed to have any particular status here, and certainly not scientist, but that wouldn't really matter. I'm referring to the philosophy of feminism.

As this is a science blog, perhaps a scientific approach might be more appropriate, don't you think?

I will expand on my previous point, since you do not appear to be a scientist, and therefore probably didnât have the foggiest idea what I was on about.

Science involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses. A scientific hypothesis often takes the form of declaring that there will be a difference, sometimes specified, sometimes not, between two objects/processes/situations. However, it is not possible to prove something true, it is only possible to prove something false. So in order to support (not prove) a scientific hypothesis, the scientist will create a negation of the hypothesis, and attempt to prove this false. This negation is referred to as the null hypothesis, and it usually takes the form of declaring that there will be no difference between the objects/processes/situations. In science, the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true until evidence is found to disprove or refute it.

Since feminism is, in effect, a declaration that there is no important difference between men and women which can justify their different treatment, scientifically speaking it is the null hypothesis, and should be assumed to be true until it is refuted.

Using a scientific approach to feminism, it is the anti-feminists, not the feminists, who are making the positive claim, and the onus is on them to justify that claim, not on the feminists to refute it.

What you can do is make an effort to learn how other people interpret your statements so that you can ensure that your meanings and intentions get across.

People do this when they give a shit about having their meanings and intentions understood. The thing you have to understand about Hawkins is that his delusional grandiosity makes him think that he doesn't, and that by "winning arguments" he is going to satisfy the emptiness he feels in his gut.

I feel sorry for the dude, and hope he figures out before it's too late that life is not a high-school debate-team championship, and that the emptiness he feels is only going to be filled by embracing mutual empathy with his fellow human beings, not by doing the righteous battle of rational skeptical d00dliness with people who are indifferent to his "arguments".

And I know that Hawkins is reading this comment, and going, "Empathy!? That's for fucking pussies! My ARGUMENT is RIGHT!!" The thing you wanna wrap your mind around, holmes, is that when it comes to *real* relationships with other human beings, all that Kant "winning arguments" shit don't mean jack fuck.

Seeing as how women are about half the human beings on the planet, and thus you probably are going to want to establish loving relationships with some of them, you might want to give this shit a bit of thought. Otherwise, you are gonna end up one of those bitter assholes on a men's rights blog ranting and raving about those "greedy bitches who ruined my life". You're only a college kid, so there's time to change course.

"Fuck me. You really are a cunt, aren't you. "

LOL. First off, no! No woman is going to fuck you. You're a flaccid misogynist. Second, i giggle with glee each time one of the useless, whiny losers show your true colors the moment a woman trumps you and you realize you've got fuck all in your arsenal but bigotry.

have fun choking on your bigoted bile, coward!

"But caricature feminists get to tell everyone else to curtail their language?"

Translation: MIKEY decides who's a REAL feminist! MIKEY decides what you stupid chicks are allowed to talk about! MIKEY decides what constitutes a real argument (even though he's never presented one himself. But he totally recognize one when he sees it. It's whatever makes his teeny weeny happy!). MIKE SMASH GURLS!!

I never realized I could feel such pity for clueless boys. It must really suck going throughout life with blinders on.

*lol*

"I still see no case being made for why it's my privilege being shown when I ask for arguments"

*facepalm* Okay, let's try explaining this to you AGAIN.

The fact that you idiotically demand arguments while idiotically ignoring everything presented in any of these threads, that's privilege. We are TELLING YOU everything you need to know. But you don't want to hear it because its not what you decided - long before you came here - is true. That's privilege. You're male, you have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about, but you're convinced WE'RE wrong, because you decided - long before you came here - that reality for all people conforms to your personal, subjective experience.

That's privilege, dumpling. Shut your mouth, still those typing fingers, open your eyes and THINK. And there might be hope for you yet.

Michael,

At 32 (your first post on the thread) you said, "Stop making your 'argument' be "You just don't get it! You just don't geeeeeeeeeeet it!" and maybe someone will listen. Time and again I see users trying to engage a discussion here and on other sites only to be told they're sexist for even questioning anything. Okay, great, you have a perspective that others don't understand. Now show your argument. Using letters in place of zeros does not count."

At 64 you were told to read Fem 101 to understand the arguments.

At 66 you say: "No. My problem is with your ridiculous arguments, not feminism."

If you actually go to Fem 101 you'll see FAQs entitled "Isn't 'the Patriarchy' just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women's woes?" and "Aren't feminists just sexists towards men?" The blog is a feminist blog and it explains in detail the thinking behind the arguments made on this and other threads (and the arguments are for equality not the oppression of men) and DIRECTLY ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERNS. So, you can't consider these arguments ridiculous and still claim you don't have a problem with feminism. What you do have is a problem with understanding the issues. I suspect that is because you're not interested in understanding the issues and you're simply here to wave your willy, consciously or otherwise.

SKM,

I just realised I missed your question @2... in saying I was back off to pull the levers, I was acknowledging Zuska's point, not saying I wish to maintain the status quo. I have a dry wit (er... or at least I like to kid myself that I do), which can lead to misinterpretations. That said, again, it puts the lie to Michael's argument that women are jumping down men's throats on these threads. In your first post on this thread, you politely asked for clarification of my point. In Michael's first post on this thread, he scolded the argument and the people making those arguments. Food for thought Michael.

'Mansplaining'? That's what you cunts are whining about now? You'll never catch husbands with that kind of sourpuss attitude.

Comrade PhysioProd is up there with the inimitable ToasterLeavings as people who come up with turns of phrase that I wish I could come up with. Brilliant.

Hawkins is a concern troll. Ignore.

Nah. It's more fun to watch his head spin around when we laugh at his petulant demands.

But feminists get to tell everyone else to curtail their language?

We don't show up on your blog telling you to quit whining and get the goddamn Cheeto dust off your fingers. Who do you think you are, you little pissant?

People do this when they give a shit about having their meanings and intentions understood. The thing you have to understand about Hawkins is that his delusional grandiosity makes him think that he doesn't, and that by "winning arguments" he is going to satisfy the emptiness he feels in his gut.

(His mom told him it's just gas from the Mountain Dew, but she's a girl so he doesn't believe her).

So where are the philosophical arguments FOR patriarchy?

This is just a dirty attempt to set up a strawman. I say there are arguments for the philosophy of feminism and you attempt to say I think the arguments need to be shown for gender equality in general. I don't understand why you're trying to make this point. No one here is arguing against equality or saying "Show me why women and men are equal". The sort of arguments (as opposed to the declarations presented here) I'm seeking are the ones which actually say why 'mansplaining' is legitimate, why it makes sense. I want to know why virtually every picture of a woman's body is apparently sexist (refer to past threads on this blog). And when someone actually attempts that argument, I want to know why intention, will, and localized context become irrelevant. Just because feminism, like most philosophies, has significant values, that doesn't mean it automatically trumps thousands of years worth of all other philosophy (in other words, you don't get to ignore Kant and co).

As this is a science blog, perhaps a scientific approach might be more appropriate, don't you think?

Like a presentation of the philosophical evidence? That's rather what I want. And again, no one expects to find much of that from a site like this, but in places where phonetic spelling isn't hip and at times when someone is saying "This argument is wrong", I think there's a reasonable expectation of being told why.

Science involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses. A scientific hypothesis often takes the form of declaring that there will be a difference, sometimes specified, sometimes not, between two objects/processes/situations. However, it is not possible to prove something true, it is only possible to prove something false. So in order to support (not prove) a scientific hypothesis, the scientist will create a negation of the hypothesis, and attempt to prove this false. This negation is referred to as the null hypothesis, and it usually takes the form of declaring that there will be no difference between the objects/processes/situations. In science, the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true until evidence is found to disprove or refute it.

Can I call you a 'mansplainer' now?

Since feminism is, in effect, a declaration that there is no important difference between men and women which can justify their different treatment, scientifically speaking it is the null hypothesis, and should be assumed to be true until it is refuted.

Using a scientific approach to feminism, it is the anti-feminists, not the feminists, who are making the positive claim, and the onus is on them to justify that claim, not on the feminists to refute it.

Feminism constitutes a philosophy. Philosophies have arguments. On both sides.

And I'm not arguing against equality and all that dandy jazz. No one is doing that (despite the constant insertions of phonetically spelled words and zeros in place of O's that imply otherwise).

Cara,

We don't show up on your blog telling you to quit whining and get the goddamn Cheeto dust off your fingers. Who do you think you are, you little pissant?

The argument was that I shouldn't be telling anyone else how to interpret my words. The response was that the person receiving the words trumps all. In addition, what that person thinks I meant still matters more than any explanation of what I actually meant.

"Screeching" refers to making childish arguments and holds no relation to gender, either in connotation or intention.

So? I think it is demeaning, therefore it is.

Is anyone listening to themselves? Apply thought experiments to all this 'arguments' *cough*declarations*cough*. Are other words offensive because of misinterpretation? Is "niggardly" inherently offensive because a lot of people will associate it with "nigger"? If your answer is no, then why is your answer yes in a parallel situation? Is this situation not parallel? Where lies the fault in the analogy?

Is anyone listening to themselves?

Uuhm, yes. Clearly you love the sound of your own voice (sight of your own text?) so we know at least you are listening.

I have an idea for an exercise. Stop typing a furious response to the above, (without considering it for a moment), and try to brainstorm loaded words in the English language. Seriously, can you not think of a few words whose context change based on who uses them? Words that may be empowering when used by some, but denigrating and insulting when used by others. There are many, many cases where how a word makes someone *feel* trumps it's intended usage.

Ultimately, if someone is offended by something you say, you cannot blame them for being too touchy-feely. Not everyone is as adept at ignoring what others say as you are.

There are many, many cases where how a word makes someone *feel* trumps it's intended usage.

I agree, and we can expand this to tone, demeanor, mannerisms and other intricacies of communication. But enough context should still trump that. My point that there's a lot of "You don't get it" going on is all about the lack of ability (or outright refusal) to give the reasons why X,Y,Z is so/not so.

Go look up Chris Rock's skit about the difference between black people and niggers. Whether you like the guy or not, his usage ought not be offensive to anyone. Aside from being comedy in the first place, he qualifies what each term means. One references skin color while another references actions. Take the term out of context and it becomes offensive again, but within the appropriate context it is understood to mean something more specific. (Though that specific thing may be offensive to you, I don't know. At the least, it should be offensive in a different way.)

Ultimately, if someone is offended by something you say, you cannot blame them for being too touchy-feely. Not everyone is as adept at ignoring what others say as you are.

You're right insofar as I ought to qualify certain words, but should I be to blame once I've explained the term?

And, on the reason behind the offensiveness, should I be held responsible for someone thinking 'He thinks I'm childish as a person' even though I've pointed out that I'm specifically saying 'This argument is childish'?

Shorter Michael Hawkins: "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!!! PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEE!!! WAAAAAHH!"

Ultimately, if someone is offended by something you say, you cannot blame them for being too touchy-feely. Not everyone is as adept at ignoring what others say as you are.

*snort*

Where lies the fault in the analogy?

The fault is in your head. Nobody here sees any useful analogy, or, indeed, anything resembling rational argument from you.

Go do your homework. When you've really learned something instead of spouting thirdhand bullshit, come back.

Jeezus fuck, Hawkins. Are you really as fucking stupid as you appear?

Jeezus fuck, Hawkins. Are you really as fucking stupid as you appear?

He reminds me of this poor kid in one of my college classes who had no, ZERO, social skills--you know, the kind of boy that's always blattering random argumentative bullshit at the instructor in an attempt to seem smarter than everyone else? But they don't ever really get the effect they're having? And they don't notice the other people rolling their eyes? And when a few girls (it's ALWAYS girls) take pity on them and nod and smile to be polite, these twerps get all full of themselves and think they've now got the harem they're entitled to by D00d Law and keep spouting shit?

So, actually, I guess we're doing Mikey a favor by telling him he's a twit. The girls in his classes are too polite to tell him the truth.

I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one here who got to college and found that some of my classmates were very used to being the smartest kid in class back in high school, and did NOT take it well when they found themselves surrounded by bright lights.

You know--those types who think that any old threadbare contrarian shit sounds smart if you slap a "prima facie" on the front of it. And then don't back down no matter what.

The effect appeared to grow worse at first (after that first intro philosophy survey class!), then level off as they either got wise or got overshadowed by folks who were actually there to learn, not to protect the image of how smart they thought they were.

The fault is in your head. Nobody here sees any useful analogy, or, indeed, anything resembling rational argument from you.

You've got it all wrong. You're suppose to be a caricature feminist. This "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" line is the stuff of caricature housewives.

Look, Michael, I gave you the fucking link, I told you this is not the appropriate space to ask these questions, if you actually want to understand, go read the Feminism 101 stuff. Unless, of course, you don't want to understand, you just want to argue. In which case, fuck off and find someplace else to do it.

"This is probably my number one issue with these sort of arguments. You're insisting that a particular term is related to gender and demeaning even though the intention is unrelated."

So what, you should have to announce your intent to be sexist before anyone interprets what you say as sexism? Please. That is like saying a joke is hilarious because the joke teller intended it to be, and that the audience should automatically laugh because of that. What a bunch of crap. Hey, maybe telling rape jokes at work isn't sexism because the dude who told the joke intended for me to laugh, not get offended! Should I just erase the hurt that exists by replacing my own thoughts with what other people intend for me to think? That doesn't sound very fair to me. It sounds like being a doormat.

Anyway, thanks for quoting me zuska. This is the 3rd scienceblog article I have been mentioned in post blog(!!!). I started writing a book for fun (about feminism), but the encouragement I get makes me think maybe it could actually go somewhere. Thanks everyone!

I am half-convinced that "Michael Hawkins" is the sockpuppet login of a regular commenter here, and that this thread, and his comments in it, is a piece of internet performance art.

"You're right insofar as I ought to qualify certain words, but should I be to blame once I've explained the term?"

If you've attempted to explain what you meant to clear up the confusion, and other people explain to you what effect those words have on them, and you keep using them... then you're just showing that you don't learn very well. You can't just barge into someone's community and demand that they accept your language and your definitions of things. Well, you can, but as you might be noticing, it's really not very effective.

Michael Hawkins: I say there are arguments for the philosophy of feminism and you attempt to say I think the arguments need to be shown for gender equality in general.

You really, really DO need to read Feminism 101, don't you?

Feminism IS gender equality, dum-dum.

Michael Hawkins: You're right insofar as I ought to qualify certain words, but should I be to blame once I've explained the term?

If you use cetrtain words/expressions to mean certain things, you are then informed that those words are likely to be interpreted to mean something insulting, and you continue to use the words, then, yes, you are to blame.

You cannot use the excuse of ignorance once that ignorance has been corrected. If you use a word KNOWING that your audience will interpret it as insulting, then clearly your intention is to insult your audience.

You're right insofar as I ought to qualify certain words, but should I be to blame once I've explained the term?

Hawkins, I'm pretty sure that no one gives a shit enough to "blame" you. I think the word you're looking for is "pity".

Maybe you really do have people impressed with your massive throbbing rational skepitcal d00d schtick at your third-rate college in the middle of jeezusfuck nowhere. But whaddya gonna do when you have to join the real world?

But whaddya gonna do when you have to join the real world?

Good question. It's worth noting, however, that certain people hold themselves to an especially low standard when it comes to discussing feminism (or in talking with majority-female groups in general). That is, they don't apply the same standards to themselves that they do in other fields.

For example, I doubt that Dan is stupid enough to go into a journal club without having read the paper and say, "hey, I glanced at the paper--I didn't read it, but I glanced at it--and I didn't see any evidence for what you're saying the authors show! I mean, you're welcome to point me to the evidence, but..*skeptical shrug*." He'd be laughed out of the room, and flunk if the journal club was for credit. yet that's exactly what he did here.

I think I used a similar example back in Zuska's first Gender Knot thread to point out how some guys were demanding to have stuff spoon-fed to them, and felt entitled to do so because the subject was related to feminism. IIRC I just got some baloney back about how scientists are totally responsible for explaining basic science to woo-peddlers. IOW, they changed the subject.

My point is that these folks probably seem more reasonable in chem lab because they respect the subject matter and hold themselves to basic minimum standards of critical thought there.

"Jeezus fuck, Hawkins. Are you really as fucking stupid as you appear?"

Clearly he is. Blind privilege breeds stupidity. he's been given links and explanations and he's *STILL* claiming no one's done either. He's a complete and total fucking moron.

"You're right insofar as I ought to qualify certain words, but should I be to blame once I've explained the term? "

If you're the only one in the conversation who defines the termt hat way, then yes you are to blame for insisting on using it to mean something that no one else agrees that it means. You can't impose your preferred usage on others. You can try, but you'll just end up being ignored. For a meaningful discussion definitions of terms have to be agreed upon and you're simply refusing to acknowledge the accepted meanings of terms in this language community and demanding that everyone think the way you do. Not going to happen.

If you're not interested in actual dialogue then you're wasting everyone's time including your own. If you are interested then you have to adjust your language to suit your audience. Interpersonal communication 101.

Well, SKM, everyone knows that feminism is all just a bunch of girly stuff, it's not like you have to think about anything. All a guy has to do is listen to the women bitch about being raped to figure it all out. The problem is that the bitches are too dumb to listen when a guy tries to help them out (by explaining why that shit happens to them and telling them how they can do life better to prevent it). You know, the easy stuff they'd all get if they weren't spending their time talking to each other.

Blind privilege breeds stupidity. He's been given links and explanations and he's *STILL* claiming no one's done either. He's a complete and total fucking moron.

Oh, he's stirring shit so he can go tell his little libertarian/MRA-wannabe buddies how he pissed off the humorless feminists (I guess laughing at him doesn't count as humor). ;) He's a fucking moron in the sense that he thinks he's upset anyone, but he's not trying to understand anything. If he did it would defeat his whole purpose.

One of the privileges of being privileged is being able to choose who challenges your privilege. That is the first privilege that must always be stomped on.

Yvonne is awesome.

"little libertarian/MRA-wannabe"

Oy. I should have known. Where's there's intense stupidity, bigotry and boring trolling, there's little libertarian/MRA-wannabes.

skeptifem,

So what, you should have to announce your intent to be sexist before anyone interprets what you say as sexism?

Don't quote mine me. The rest of that post goes on to point out that I'm not disagreeing that sexist terms exist unbeknownst to the user. I am not claiming that sexism does not exist because people may not realize they are being sexist.

Intent is important, however. It's reasonable to say, "Hey, wait a minute...that term sounds demeaning to X group", but what isn't reasonable is to then listen to the explanation of the word, the context, the intended connotations, and (especially in this case) the complete lack of relevance to X group, only to then ignore all that. "Screech" is meant to trivialize and demean the argument, yes. But it is based upon the fact that the argument is childish and children tend to screech.

This reminds me of that congress member in '08 that called the Obamas "uppity". His intention was obvious: he was playing off the whole elitist rhetoric. He understood the word choice to have that meaning. He later claimed ignorance of the racial connotations of it all and apologized. It's easy to see why many would be skeptical of his claim of ignorance, but for those who actually didn't know that use of the word (which includes myself and countless other random schmoes who chimed in on the Internet, TV, and radio), his claim is plausible. But for the sake of argument, say he really had no idea what the word meant in reference to black people. Does that make him racist? Does he hate black people all of a sudden?

If you've attempted to explain what you meant to clear up the confusion, and other people explain to you what effect those words have on them, and you keep using them... then you're just showing that you don't learn very well.

Does it make any difference if the word is defined immediately prior to its use? Look up Chris Rocks' bit about niggers and black people. He makes a distinction, but he obviously knows the effect the term has on many people. Is he being racist?

If you use a word KNOWING that your audience will interpret it as insulting, then clearly your intention is to insult your audience.

I actually like the first part of your argument (which is roughly the same as the one I just quoted), but this part is a jump. If I say "Here's what this means" and then I use the word, I think a case can be made for insensitivity or a disregard of others, but the case for intended insult is harder. It's fundamentally unfair for someone to tell me what I did or did not intend after I've said otherwise; if someone believes me to be a liar here, then why bother with any discussion?

And in fact, any further use of the term is based upon a rebellion toward the PC junk that is out there. Believe it or not, I really do care about language. I don't want to see it curtailed because it might offend someone. (Another anecdotal story...I referred to the people with whom a friend works as "retarded" once because, well, that's what they are. What's more, my friend's company makes a distinction between mentally ill and mentally retarded, freely using the term. In this context, it's descriptive of a condition. Of course, someone freaked out upon my use, assuming I was just calling people retards. Explanation did not matter. And neither did context, evidently.)

you're simply refusing to acknowledge the accepted meanings of terms in this language community and demanding that everyone think the way you do. Not going to happen.

So if a majority thinks a word means X, it should always mean X? Like when someone says "That was niggardly of him", that person should be shamed because a lot of people think the term is related to "nigger"?

And I'm not demanding you think any particular way. You can define the term how you please. I've told you how I actually used it. You still don't get to ignore Kant and co.

Two more points.

First: I'm libertarian? I think people should generally be allowed to do as they please - socially - provided it causes no harm to others, but I'm also pretty much disgusted when anyone tries to label Obama a socialist economically. He has not come close to earning such a prestigious title. (And in case you've missed it, my views are fucking utilitarian, if anything. Christ.)

Second: If you would like to save time, Comrade Major Meltdown, I am literally not reading your posts (bar the occasional circle-jerk Endor is trying to get going...or I guess segment jerk). You're a spamming troll.

"What isn't reasonable is to then listen to the explanation of the word, the context, the intended connotations, and (especially in this case) the complete lack of relevance to X group, only to then ignore all that."

Your assumption that your analysis of the gendered connotations of a word is more valid and must be accepted once explained is an example of privilege.

Read the Feminism 101 FAQs. Read some books and take some gender studies classes. STAT.

Your assumption that your analysis of the gendered connotations of a word is more valid and must be accepted once explained is an example of privilege.

1) I did not say one version is more valid than the other. Feel free to point out where I did.

2) I did not say you must accept my definition. I actually said, "And I'm not demanding you think any particular way. You can define the term how you please. I've told you how I actually used it. You still don't get to ignore Kant and co."

I'm saying it is unreasonable to say the word does not mean what I'm saying it means in my context, in my usage, with my connotations - after I've given a definition and explanation. This reminds me of all those people who accuse Dawkins of using "selfish" in some anthropomorphic way.

And you still don't get to ignore Kant and co.

Mikey. You are so dull and tiresome. Nothing about you is even amusing anymore. Either go read ALL of Feminisim 101 before posting here again, or else find somewhere else to troll. I have eldercare responsibilities and I can't be bothered with babysitting a whiny ass d00dche at the same time.

"So if a majority thinks a word means X, it should always mean X? "

The meaning of X can change, but not because one person says so. Social constructions do actually mean something and exist collectively. If you don't believe me, try to convince a shop that your one dollar bill actually represents twenty dollars in purchasing power.

As for the rest, I am not going to debate someone who won't read basic material on the subject. I didn't quote mine you either, you consistently made the argument that the intent of the speaker trumps the effect the words had on the audience. I'm not going to play debate team with you though, why would I? I wasted far too much time trying to nicely/calmly explain feminism to dudes who simply weren't interested to fall for this whole deal again. You're like a whiny creationist, who wants people to respond to their not even wrong arguments, and ignores links to talkorigins. You can educate yourself, or be ignored. Someone who genuinely wants to learn does not act like you have on scienceblogs.

The meaning of X can change, but not because one person says so. Social constructions do actually mean something and exist collectively. If you don't believe me, try to convince a shop that your one dollar bill actually represents twenty dollars in purchasing power.

Feminist philosophy concedes that "screech" and similar words often are not taken to mean anything related to gender - it's male privilege and there often is not awareness. The argument is that it is not this definition that then matters, but rather how the connotations are perceived, what the historical relevance is, and how the oppressed react that matters. If this is so, then the meaning of a term cannot change for feminism just because feminists say so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As for the rest, I am not going to debate someone who won't read basic material on the subject.

I'm hardly disagreeing with the broad* overview of feminism. My dispute is on specific examples. Unlike the representation of the philosophy given here, context matters to me.

I didn't quote mine you either, you consistently made the argument that the intent of the speaker trumps the effect the words had on the audience.

I've argued that intent is important and that you don't get to ignore it because it's inconvenient; I doubt feminism somehow trumps hundreds of years of other philosophy. I've also argued - immediately after your quote mine, in fact - that context matters.

I've offered specific examples where if what you're saying is true, then it should be true in what I've offered (i.e., Chris Rock or "niggardly").

*Was this offensive? I know the word can mean different things in different contexts. Sorry I just oppressed you here, I guess.

Does that make him racist? Does he hate black people all of a sudden?

Yes, he is racist. No, no he didn't suddenly start hating black people.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the default is not-racist/sexist/ableist/classist/etc. when the exact opposite is true. I am sexist. You are sexist. Pretty much everyone is sexist to some degree because sexism is not simply something that "bad" people who hate an oppressed group do, it's a cultural system based around privilege that everyone is taught from a young age.

If you want to actually talk about feminist, or any other anti-oppression philosophy, you better do some reading on privilege fist because you clearly don't understand the concept and it's important. Like everyone else here, I would suggest reading Feminism 101. Googling "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is also very informative. Also, searching for Zuska'a post on "The Gender Knot" and maybe even reading the book would be a good idea. But I guess you're probably going to completely ignore this because doing some background reading would distract you from how awesomely you think you are doing at the debate you imagine to be having with us "caricature feminists".

Do you ever wonder how hard a person has to work in order to not see the sexism that is everywhere?
Michael Whoozit has just given a demonstration of what it takes and how it is done.
Any eight year old girl or boy has a clearer understanding of what is being discussed on these threads than Michael Whoozit does. Understandable, I suppose, since willful ignorance of the obvious requires years of dedicated effort to achieve.

Yes, he is racist. Yes, he is racist. No, no he didn't suddenly start hating black people.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the default is not-racist/sexist/ableist/classist/etc.

So that congressman was showing his privilege by engaging in rhetoric that was about elitism?

Understandable, I suppose, since willful ignorance of the obvious requires years of dedicated effort to achieve.

This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people.

For fuck's sake did you finally cut that Mikey idiot off?

I come here for the terrific posts, education, and mansplaining guffaws but that "moran" was the energizer bunny of fucktwits.
I couldn't drag my eyes through the sludge of his last comments, but thanks to all for the entertaining replies.

Well, we've all had fun watching Michael fuss and spit and practice his best high school debate team schtick. But I really am serious about having lost my patience for this - maybe it's just the elder care talking - but if the next time I log in and see a comment from Michael, and it DOESN'T say "I'm off to read all of Feminism 101 and promise not to come back and comment till I've done so!", his ass is going to be banned here. I am so not joking.

I just watched that little movie you made with that tool Mikey.

I see you are miles ahead of me, and have mocking him publicly well underway and well in hand. Absolutely beautiful.

Now can you please add that cunt Queef, the one whose tiny brain matches his tiny penis? He asked for it, and he should get it.
You know what they say, "he was asking for it."

I predict a persecution complex will result from the banning. It will be pretty funny to see when it spills onto other science blogs.

I can't blame anyone for wanting to ban him. When I post "I am not having a debate about feminism when you won't go read anything on the subject" he seems to read "Wow, that chick really wants to have a debate with me". Knob.

@Michael Hawkins
Here is one link- reading this you might start to understand why language can be sexist even without the speaker intending to be:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

P.S. Michael:

Before you bring up Kant on a feminist blog, you need to read and contemplate Jane Flax's chapter on Kant and Enlightenment thinking in "Disputed Subjects."

If anything, resting your argument on Kant (why?) offers a plethora of reasons for feminists to question these premises. But again, until you're willing to engage with what feminists define as feminism (rather than your own statement of what you believe feminism is) there's no point in discussing feminist theories with you. Check your privilege at the door; it is not up to you to define what feminism is and to say that you "agree with feminism" when you refuse to engage with feminist thought. Especially when links and resources to the very, very basic elements of feminism have been provided.

Please don't use 'cunt' as an insult on this blog. Thank you. Also I am far too tired to find a link for you right now but Samia has schooled me on the problems with dick size insults.

ROFL @ #10 c.p.

you're cool Zuska. i like your blog.

RT ek_ladki@122. Yup, you're cool, Zuska.

I thought The Sexists' interview with Thomas from "Yes Means Yes", which ran today, would make a good intro piece for the folks who are genuinely asking for more resources as it is about points of access to feminist thought for the guys (d00ds may find it hard to understand). Plus, it's a lovely antidote to the Hawkins slog. (I'm leaving the links out 'cause I think if you are new to this- as opposed to already knowing who Amanda Hess is - you should do the work of looking for it. I've given enough information to make that possible.)

Your assumption that your analysis of the gendered connotations of a word is more valid and must be accepted once explained is an example of privilege.

My apologies. I have been reading the links I've been given here and in the past, including Fem 101, and especially as they pertain to the specific issues raised. What I did not realize, however, was that what you really meant was "Go read these sites and THEN come back...and agree with us."

Comrade Svilova,

That criticism of Kant addresses the context of the writings, not the direct implications of it or any of the issues I've raised. Intention matters - even if it was a sexist man who originally said it.

@126 Hawkins wants to argue about the underpinnings of statements people have presented here. The people he seeks to argue with have repeatedly said they do not want to argue about those underpinnings. Hawkins has repeatedly ignored those statements and insisted on his right to argue with people even when they do not consent. What other situation does this sound like?

One of the problems here is that neither this thread nor the original thread to which Zuska links in this post were ever about "debating" "feminist philosophy"; they are about women's lives. The threads are tagged "naming experience". Abstract discussions of philosophy mean little without engaging with lived reality. And well, these threads happen to be about the latter.

It's like going into a butcher shop and demanding to be presented with cakes for sale.

Yvonne: I recall a thread on another SciBlogs blog where a commenter kept second-guessing the experience behind my comments (yes, it was about intent behind language!) until I finally just summarized my position and said I would leave it at that.

The guy came back with "I hope you weren't serious about being done here" and "if I can entice you to continue, consider...". Really.

Sometimes the words are wheedling, and sometimes outright coercive, but people who do this in comments threads have boundary issues that likely extend into face-to-face interactions. I just doubt that someone can be respectful in person and abandon that online.

In short: I take your point, and it's pretty scary.

I've summarized and addressed a number of issues here.

And I am very pleasant and polite in person. Just a big teddy bear.

At one time, pet rocks were all the rage, and everybody amused themselves with them to while away boring hours. Then we all said, "this is a dumb senseless hunk of gravel that someone glued human-like features on and passed off as worth our attention, if only for amusement. I am SO over that!" And in the trash bin they all went.

Goodby, Michael D00dche-kins!!!!

SKM: Yeah, it's like the fractal of privilege. The shape repeats at different levels, different levels of threat, different levels of impact. But it's the same shape repeated in different ways. At least having it on display like this gives me the opportunity to see the shape so I can better recognize when I might be accessing my own unearned privilege without realizing it. That's about the only good I can see to reading someone who refuses to respect the discourse rules of the house he inserts himself into.

The notable yet not surprising thing about Hawkins's posted response is the low standard he sets for himself. For example, he states that there is not "a significant number of people who really do think it is a womanâs fault for getting raped. Instead, the only close argument that actually gets made is that it is a good idea for women to not walk alone at night in dangerous places or that women should carry rape whistles and/or cell phones"

This casual assumption is factually incorrect, yet he expects people to go over there and seriously engage his thinking. Good luck with that.

At least having it on display like this gives me the opportunity to see the shape so I can better recognize when I might be accessing my own unearned privilege without realizing it.

Oh yes, this! Also, one can learn to spot the boundary issues and bad faith and cut one's losses early. Of course, that's harder to do if the boundary-crasher is in a position of power (boss, etc.), but in many casual interactions, we can hone the privilegometer and save ourselves by cutting off an interaction that will come to no good.

Yvonne: thanks for pointing that out. This is one of the things I try to do with this blog, one of the reasons I let threads run amuck. You can learn things from studying the actual speech of the dominant group and its various apologists...it's not the same as saying "this is what d00ds think and believe". Show and tell is better than just tell.

Even so, even I have had my fill of this particular show and tell.

This isn't perhaps important, but for those not following this discussion as it has bled over into Hawkins own blog, I'd like to point out that he responded to my recommendation that he read Jane Flax by a rebuttal -- including a quote he attributed to Flax which not only is not penned by her and thus *does not* represent her scholarship on the gendering of language in Enlightenment thinking, but is part of an article by another author who specifically distances herself from Flax's analysis, asserting that she (the other author) is more interested in pursuing another line of analysis. And it is this distancing sentence that Hawkins uses as an example of how Jane Flax is (supposedly) not addressing the actual texts of the Enlightenment.

*headdesk*

Sorry Zuska, I got queef and Dan mixed up. Dan called a female commenter the C word in the beginning of this thread, and queef picked his screen name to be offensive. I take note of your objection, and promise not to do it again.

It still amazes me that these manly types can't stand to let a few women have VIRTUAL space, space that literally does not take up any space that is in the actual way of their space without crapping all over it. Then they repeatedly, obnoxiously re-state dribble when they have been asked to leave or just shut up by a number of people.

I feel for your elder care duties, as I too am involved with that, and hope I didn't make your life harder by also mis-crediting you with "mansplaining" in another thread as well. Sleep deprivation coupled with ire; not a great combo.

I make many mistakes, but it is a comfort to know that no matter how many I make, I can never be the worst offender on this thread!

Thanks to Zuska and all the great commenters.

I still don't get what's wrong with my name. It's just something that happens.

No one is debating whether it does or does not happen, so please refrain from using that line of arguement further.

What is being debated is your stunning lack of foresight in deciding to name yourself after an often insulting and derogatory slang term on a website that is predominantly visited by women.

You are either clueless, or you knowingly did it for your own amusement. You cannot claim any form of coincidence or innocent lack of malintent as a defence.

You did not name yourself hypogonadism, or faecal compaction, yet - by your own arguement - they would have been equally valid names.

Please stop trying to plead innocence. It's clear as day that you're being 'controversial' on purpose.

@Yvonne: on continuing to demand a debate when everyone had already said they weren't interested in a debate: I hadn't even made that connection, that sheds a lot of light on what was happening there.

translated queef: This is the only way chicks will talk to me! Negative attention is better than none!

Rev Matt- yeah, I had the same thought at yvonne, but I didn't want to say anything. I worry about trivializing things or looking hysterical. But when Yvonne wrote that I realized that having my words and will disregarded is something to be angry about whenever it happens. Thanks you guys, both of ya.

@skeptifem: and yet plenty of men will claim that there's nothing keeping women from speaking up. Any oppressed population will begin to self censor rather than risk the consequences.

Not that you need me to tell you this, but you needn't worry about trivializing or looking hysterical. If your perception is that x is happening then speaking out is always appropriate.

Wherever feminists gather to observe the quality and density of the rain (sexism) there always seems to be some d00d who shows up to deny that water is wet and then demand a debate about it.

I'm really late to this party, but I will say that my facebook status is officially, "I'm a femsplainer and I see sexism everywhere."

@skeptifem: yeah, I wouldn't have posted that just anywhere, but I could tell the main folks here would hear what I was actually saying. That's why spaces like this are so important. If I've made a point that helps others, it's because others have helped make a space in which the point could be made in the first place.

My favorite example of mansplaining:

12 years ago, I went on a date with a tall handsome man to a terrible movie. (Deep Impact.) It was a first date. At one point during the boring movie, the phrase "Orion drive" was mentioned, without explanation. The man leaned over and began to explain, in detail, what an Orion drive was.

"I know what it is," I whispered, a little put out.

He looked at me and kept explaining!

I repeated, "I know what an Orion Drive is."

He blinked and kept explaining!

I snarled, angrily, "I know what the hell an Orion drive is!" He shut up.

For reasons I won't go into here, I did agree to a second date with this man. And a third. And 12 years later, we're married and he never has mansplained again.

Dedj, I came up with it long before I ever posted on Zuska's blog. I've posted with it on plenty of other blogs before this. So, that fails. I also don't see it as derogatory. I see it as a natural bodily function. If you don't, sorry.

You can use hypogonadism if you wish. I won't get offended. Promise.

Endor, I don't see it that way either. Nice attempt at snarkiness though.

tell yourself whatever lies you need to get through the day, dumplin'.

"I've posted with it on plenty of other blogs before this. So, that fails."

It doesn't fail because you still elected to use it on this blog, in a thread that was/is about the gender based invalidation of general and specific experiences of women.

You elected not to use a less obviously offensive name, despite the clear and obvious warning signs that such a name might just not go down very well on a site like this.

That you don't get how offensive it can be in context is the point that has been explained to you multiple times now.

"I also don't see it as derogatory. I see it as a natural bodily function. If you don't, sorry."

Again, you confuse the selection of the name, and the action it describes. That you don't get the distinction is why people have been pointing it out to you.

So, you basically admitted lack of forethought, and this somehow absolves you from the responsibility of facing up to your lack of forethought?

You really haven't thought your defence out at all.

It didn't deserve forethought. I'm not the one somehow forcing you to be offended by it.

First, I'm not that much offended by it. This may be because I'm not a woman. However, I am aware that it can be seen as crass and offensive, and can perceive how some women may be offended - especially on a blog that has a fairly obvious focus on gender issues.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about blaming you for the offensiveness of the word, so you will cut that shit out right now.

Your defence against the concern that you failed to consider the possibility of the inappropriateness of choosing to use that name here is..........that you didn't consider the possiblity of the inappropriateness of your choice to use that name here.

Well done. Perhaps you might like to engage your brain next time.

You've basically spent the last few exchanges with myself and others admitting that you didn't think about it how it may have come across to others or don't care, and that you don't care what others think of your actions.

That you didn't think about it is exactly the concern that was laid before you.

No one here wants to know whether you thought about it or not - because you clearly didn't - nor what your opinion is - because you're clearly an inconsiderate asshole - what is under contention here is why you think your opinion should be adopted by everyone around you.

Until you can properly adress the concerns with something more substantial than "I did it because I'm the sort of person that does that does these things" it would be appreciated by all if you were to kindly shut up and behave.

What a waste of time you have been.

Oh, Dedj, he did it to impress other boyz. Ooh, so edgy he is. "Asshole" is giving the little tweaker too much credit.

And his spit-up isn't exactly a waste of time (except maybe his, if he's trying to upset the grownups), because it beautifully illustrates our points to those who say things like, "Aren't you all just oversensitive and looking for things to be upset about?"

If someone has to have a handle like "Queef" to get attention on ANY site, how much power does he think he has to be acknowledged for his actual intelligence? And from whom does one want acknowledgment if one's posting as "Queef" on a feminist site? Little Fauntleroy here isn't quite the subtle genius he thinks he is (or has been told he is by those adolescents who can't type a sentence at all).

He must really be trying to stir something up, but isn't bright enough to post something of substance. It's like the teabaggers yelling racial slurs--no thought, just lizard-brain outbursts, like an infant crying for food.

It's sort of sad--or would be if it were an adult posting. For kids it's a developmental stage (especially for boys who are mad that Mom can still tell them to clean their rooms) and with luck he'll outgrow it.

This isn't perhaps important, but for those not following this discussion as it has bled over into Hawkins own blog,

Oh, I see. The poor kid has no traffic on his blog, so he taps into the handy ever-present current of misogyny as bait. I think he'd do better with LOLcats; still, making macros takes time and effort.

Eh. If your handle was Fart, queef, no one would even bother to read your posts, though flatulence is also a natural, indeed universal, part of life. The only reason you haven't been snubbed on other forums is the word itself is obscure. I think you chose it so you could snicker like a ten-year-old because "I made you use a shocking word! And you don't even know it!" Or, even worse, you see it as some form of vocabulary test - but it's a stupid word, as the event it describes is rare, medically irrelevant, and doesn't merit much discussion.

Either way, your choice of handle is immature and you should probably live with the fact that women of broader vocabulary are going to sneer at you for using it.

"It didn't deserve forethought. I'm not the one somehow forcing you to be offended by it."

And allow me to show you just how much contempt I have for you, anything that concerns you, and how little interest I have in you, your opinions, and anything but the attention I feel is my due. From you bitches.

You know, I'd have more---er, make that SOME---respect for these assholes if they'd just own up to it. Of course, then that would result in them being deservedly dropkicked into the Troll Purgatory.....

The thing tha gets me about all these oh-so-edgey dudes is that the little fuckers never realize that the edgiest and most courageous thing they can do these days is be an unabashed, front-line male feminist, because that will make them everybody's enemy and give that that sought-after rebel cred. Oh, wait, but then the other doodz will probably call them pussywhipped.

They're whipped either way. Being decent means they're pussywhipped, but joining in with their little boyfriends is just a form of Stockholm Syndrome--after all, one slip and they're next. They know what awaits them if they don't follow the crowd.

It takes real guts to be a decent person. Most kids don't have what it takes. Some develop courage and decency eventually. Most, sadly, don't.

I run into the Michael Hawkins' of the world every now and then. They're the yapping incontinent lapdogs in the hardcore engineering world. The accepted mode of dealing with them in such circles is for the alpha geek present to absentmindedly squash them like a bug, then rub their nose in their effluvia until they appear likely to shut the fuck up.

A good alpha geek never enjoys this process but only takes it on with a weary sigh to gain some peace, and then promptly forgets about it unless the Hawkins starts peeing on the carpet again. If you want to see a frantic crisis of anxious masculinity, try to catch one of them after said squashing was performed by an alpha geek who happens to be a woman.

ROFL. I just clicked through to Hawkins' blog, and only managed to get through a few sentences before collapsing in helpless laughter.

You see, he's chosen his sticking point regarding Zuska, feminism, and anything else he chooses to lump together -- he absolutely, frantically, anxiously cannot stand the notion that he should be judged on the consequences of his actions alone, without holding of his precious hand and coddling listening sympathetically to whatever he happens to make up about his intentions.

What I said earlier about the yapping incontinent lapdogs of the engineering world? Yeah, this is another of their favorite symptoms.

Hawkins, honey, soothing assurances that your intentions matter are for six-year-olds. You are not six, and the world is not your mommy. In any environment where only the real matters, such as in hardcore engineering groups or among serious feminists, you're never going to be regarded as anything but a big baby with nothing to contribute so long as you carry on with that line.

Rest assured, though, it does work to get you attention, if the sort of attention you were hoping for is having the people who actually accomplish things snicker at you behind your back.

"...you should probably live with the fact that women of broader vocabulary are going to sneer at you for using it."

Yeah, sure. If that's how you want to handle it, I'm not stopping you.

"...the little fuckers never realize that the edgiest and most courageous thing they can do these days is be an unabashed, front-line male feminist"

When did I ever say that I do not support feminism?

"If your handle was Fart..."

But, fart doesn't rhyme with my first name.

I think you should realize, ginmar, that just because something is related to being female, doesn't automatically make it bad.

Queefs happen.

They're the yapping incontinent lapdogs in the hardcore engineering world.

The need to be fired.

"Yeah, sure. If that's how you want to handle it, I'm not stopping you."

Yet, by asserting that 'queefs happen' and that there is therefore nothing wrong with electing to use that name (you still seem bizzarely focused on the word, when it has been made clear to you that the concern is with your selection of it), you are, in fact, attempting to invalidate any opposition to you using that name.

You have shown no recognition, despite repeated instruction, of what the actual concern is.

You have been repeatedly informed that, yes, queef can be a derogatory term, and that your use of it is highly suspicious in this context. That you do not think so, is the problem, not the answer.

There is no reason to debate with you further until you can recognise this.

A prepubescent boy trying to stir up the wimmens (by using the worst word he knows and being disingenuous about it) and being ignored by the grownups isn't "debate". It's "Mom's not home to stop me from trolling feminist sites because it's Spring Break."

as a male, i fully acknowledge that mansplainin as you call it happens. it is real. some men talk down to women and look at them as "slower". i dont know what this feels like. but as a young male i have been talked down to condescendingly and i empathize (or sympathize? idk) but i dont feel this justifies how you treat male poster who disagree with you. you call any guy who disagrees a sexist and when they try to defend themselves you say "oh whatever SEXIST. why would we listen to a SEXIST?" without addressing his arguments. This quote from another male poster accurately describes my feelings:

--Sexism is whatever a woman subjectively feels it is and objective evidence has no bearing on the matter.

It saddens me to see that when this blog's conclusions were challenged in a respectful manner, the response was basicly:

Shut up, you're just a man

Even if men and women are treated the same, it's still sexism because of the history of unequal treatment.

This was just an emotional outpouring, so the conclusions don't have to be true and/or men are not allowed to comment on it.------------------------

i would appreciate a serious response but if you want to just say that i dont understand because im a man i guess ill take that too. i'd like to end this post with a quote from one of my favorite rappers

"The thing that men and women need to do is stick together,
progressions can't be made if we're separate forever"

First, read some Feminism 101. There are several great Feminism 101 blogs online.

Men are not always sexist. There are amazing male feminists and feminist allies. But sometimes men (and women) say things that fit in with overall patterns of sexism -- patterns that have existed for thousands of years -- and women who have spent many years studying these patterns of institutionalized discrimination and have lived their whole lives experiencing it may indeed be better at identifying sexism than a guy who just stumbled across a feminist blog.

It's not as black and white as you paint it. All men aren't sexist. Some women are sexist (i.e. participate in sexist discourse against women). And those of us who have spent a lifetime noticing sexism and have studied it extensively have an understanding of sexism that goes beyond that which is displayed by the poster you're concerned about.

Before you say that we've studied it so much that we're biased, think about whether you'd tell someone who speaks fluent French that hir translation of a text is probably wrong because ze has spent too much time with the language and probably doesn't have the necessary objectivity that you have. (These ideas are all paraphrased from Melissa McEwan's Feminism 101 blog at Shakesville.)

And that's all the teaching I'm doing today. You questions are very basic 101 questions, and you can find the answers to them yourself with a little googling and reading.

"It saddens me to see that when this blog's conclusions were challenged in a respectful manner, the response was basicly:

Shut up, you're just a man"

The opening post was very clear in terms of which particular behaviour and context it was talking about.

The responses included:

repeated posts by a person with a derogatory username (which we MUST accept because he's given his reasons for choosing it, even if those reasons don't actually address any of the concerns with the fact that he chose that name). Hardly respectful.

a poster who made repeated sarcastic accusations of ignorance and lack of insight which had nothing to do with the content or context of the thread, but which were merely grandstanding his own bugbear. Hardly respectful.

a poster who ignored the carefully laid out explanation of the specificity of the complaint in the background material in order to make patently false accusations of over-generalisation, and who persisted even after direct and specific correction. Hardly respectful.

a poster who made repeated unreasonable demands for extensive background knowledge, despite being informed directly and explicitly that those demands are unreasonable, and who also refused to accept that some of his terms and behaviour could be offensive merely because he didn't think so. Hardly respectful.

In essence, the posters concerned were dismissed and ridiculed because either :

they clearly hadn't understood the original complaint, despite the specifity given in the original background material.

OR:

they were demanding, offensive or derogatory, failed to address the existance of the phenomenon, failed to accept any experiential observations (whilst giving utmost weight to their own, despite these being indicated as logically bizarre and factually weak) and failed to show any concern for other participants in the thread, or any concern for the impact their own behaviour may have had on others, and who failed to address any gaps in thier background knowledge despite instruction and direction.

"This was just an emotional outpouring, so the conclusions don't have to be true and/or men are not allowed to comment on it.------------------------"

If you mean the thread, then there are a number of male posters involved in the discussion, including those that have that agreed with the existance of the phenomenon, and including those that provided rebuttals to people that have disagreed.

"Just an" and "emotional outpouring" is an attempt to depict the thread as having an irrational basis, or an attempt to devalue the thread due to its emotional content.

This is a phenomenon that affects all people of all ages for all reasons (i.e. I'm older/married/have kids/have a MSc to your BSc/used to work at/have a cousin who..../have a dad who... therefore I know more than you do, even though I don't know how much you know), however, this particular thread - and the background material - was very specifically about the particular brand of 'splainin that is done with clearly identified intent and context by men towards women.

Mansplaining can be be really subtle as well as in your face. I've been noticing this phenomenon for the past two decades, and some of the related phenomenon have definetly been noticable whenever I've been the only male in ward/case meetings as any technical question or command decision seems to be relayed through me (or the most senior male) even by staff, even when a more senior female with more contact hours has been front and centre.

The Thread That Keeps On Giving...

thusspakezuska — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:54:31 +0000

The Thread That Keeps On Giving...

That mansplainer thread just won't quit - it is the gift that keeps on giving. Well, if you can call continuing recitations of the endless ways women are constantly mansplained by the d00dly mainsplainers of the world a "gift". Along with the mansplainer d00ds who show up to mansplain how mansplaining does not exist, should not be called mansplaining if it does exist, is a benign and non-sexist practice if it does exist, and anyway, I THOUGHT THIS WAS SCIENCEBLOGS WHAT ABOUT THE SCIENCE DEAR GOD WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE POOR SCIENCE????

Which brings us to Ace's most excellent and apropos comment:

Is there another word like manventing for conjuring elaborate situations in your head that explain away any situations that contradict your "facts"? Ex: I was mansplained to that the reason one of my homework questions was wrong was not because I had simply lost track of a wayward negative sign, but because women cannot understand physics with their poor tiny non-spatial brains. Yet when I pointed out that that I had scored roughly 20% higher in physics on our (non-curved) graduation exams than he, he manvented the "fact" that the government adjusts womens' scores in math and science to make them feel better. Or something. Because I didn't actually write a perfect exam, I just scored higher than the rest of the inferior females.

You cannot make this shit up. Oh wait, you can. If you are a manventer.

Ladies of the mansplainer thread, I am happy that you have found community, and a word for that which has so plagued your existence. Naming experience is so very important - once we can give a name to what is happening to us, it has a little less power over us, at least a little less power to make us feel so crazy about it. There's a whole category on this blog called "naming experience" to reflect that importance. I'm just sorry that there are so many of you, and that your unhappy mansplaining experiences are so varied and many.

Here's hoping all your mansplainers, with their manvented facts, develop a long-lasting case of laryngitis. I'm talking years-long. May you enjoy the sweet sounds of mansplaining silence, at least for awhile in this month celebrating women's history.

thusspakezuska Wed, 03/10/2010 - 10:54

Tags

I also like "Manterrupt". And there really needs to be a word for the phenomenon where a woman says something in a meeting and it's ignored but then later a man says the same thing to a chorus of approval. I propose "reardiculate".

"Simon reardiculated Sarah's argument and everyone at the meeting agreed."

MissPrism, my brain keeps auto-correcting "reardiculate" to "re-articulate", but I think I can get used to it with practice.

It's funny the names you picked for your anecdote, because my first name is Sarah. Furthermore, I was at one of those research department holiday functions a few years ago and among the other guests was a Big Shot Scientist named Simon. We were chatting in a group with a couple of other men. In the course of the discussion, Simon made a point, the men agreed, and he said, "Really?--It's what Sarah said three minutes ago". They had simply ignored me when I said it. I told him if he ever got tired of being a Big Shot Scientist, he could start his own business, called Simon Says, wherein he travels around to business meetings and networking sessions to reardiculate women's points for them. (I said "repeat", as I did not yet have the word).

We laughed, but it's not too funny, as women would have to pay him for the service--yet another tax on being female.

I'm glad you are posting more - yay, fun. I think "re-ardiculate" is less likely to be readjusted if you spell it properly "reardickulate" ;-). That "k" just needs to be there.

I just appeared on a panel at a large scale energy public event - there were three women on the panel in a building full of engineers and builders, mostly male. I made a reference to popular science tv show during my presentation, which was well received, and a gentleman came down to chat with me. What he wanted to share was an obscene joke about that television and something you could do with one of the female leads. When I rolled my eyes and said I thought that was pretty stupid, actually, he apologized saying "you spoke so well, I forgot you were a woman."

I'm not sure what the correct word for "wow, you are almost a man" would be, but I think the world needs one.

Sharon

SKM - spooky! I suppose reardickulation (and I rather like that spelling tweak!) is common enough that whatever name I chose would fit someone, though. Sigh.

And I'm really glad that the Simon in your anecdote was enlightened about it. Hurrah for him!

On second thoughts, I seem to be misreading that as as "rear dickulation" so it probably needs a hyphen to avoid potentially awkward confusion! Sharon, it seems your mind is cleaner than mine.

Yeah, I think if one used "reardickulation" it would take less than 10 seconds for the first "joke" about non-consensual anal intercourse to drop.

MissPrism, I don't know this Simon well enough to know how far his enlightenment extends, but he's treated me respectfully in our limited interaction, and, oddly enough, if you look at the staff of the center he directs, you see it's 50% women, evenly distributed along the power structure (both of his co-directors are women). You also see people of color and even a dude holding his own baby on the Staff photo page. It's almost like the boss' attitude affects actual diversity in hiring and promotion, or something.

But I'm sure it's all totally just a coincidence.

I wish the dudes would just listen instead of trying to argue away our experiences. As if any of us ever unthinkingly jumped into feminism, because its so easy and popular. Most of us jumped through some pretty silly mental hoops trying to make mansplaining into something else, because it is difficult to conclude that patriarchy is a real problem. Rationalizing some form of oppression is a shared experience, we have all done it at some point. You are signing up to get treated like shit in a whole new way when you become a feminist, and you actually have to try and do something about the situation instead of sitting back and accepting the world as is. Nothing makes me angrier than women being told that they didn't go through something when they most certainly did. What dudes need to understand is that a non feminist dude perspective is what we are all saturated in, every day. It is pretty fucking impossible to alert us of it when you cannot avoid hearing it every single day. Feminist opinion has to be sought out, examined because of its distance from the mainstream. Just learning to speak up was a huge challenge for me, I would assume by default that I was not worth listening to. There are so many pieces of myself that I had to fight for that men get for free. They should listen when women talk; we had to earn it.

Oh Zuska,
I totally get your mansplaining!!! I am a middle aged woman who has now reached the point where I have read TONS more than most men but they still know EVERYTHING! I have a puny BA and every guy around me is the king of the world. (I live in Wash DC) Save me from the non scientific, narrow readers, narrow thinkers of the world!
Karen

That was a great thread, it's nice to be able to say, "Can you believe that happened!" and hear, "No kidding, RIDICULOUS!" every once in a while, instead of, "That didn't happen at all, and even if it did you deserved it."

Ooh, I have an idea for a new topic!
How about mansplaining in reverse? Assuming that a woman's gender magically grants her extensive knowledge of something, for example, washing clothes, cooking, using the photocopier, getting coffee, sewing, child psychology, knitting, clothing fashions, makeup, or what have you.

As this is a quiet thread that hasn't yet been invaded by DoucheDoods(tm), I thought I'd describe something that happened yesterday that struck me as a perfect physical illustration of mansplaining.
I should state first that my boyfriend is a respectful, supportive, understanding, thoughtful and all-round wonderful chap whom I utterly adore, and he hasn't got a consciously sexist cell in his body. But men like that still do things like this:

The other day, I bought some new panniers for my bicycle. I cycle more than he does, and I have used panniers for years, and he hasn't. Anyway, I was holding the pannier, fiddling with the bit that hooks it to the rack so's to fit my bike. And he came and took it off me. Just lifted it right out of my hands without asking if I wanted any help, and started fiddling with it himself instead.

A minute later I took it back off him in the same manner. He was upset by this obvious rudeness on my part, but when I explained, it turned out he hadn't even noticed that he'd done the same. And if I hadn't been entirely sure that I knew what I was doing just as much as he did, I don't think I would have noticed either. I'd have let him fix it, thanked him admiringly, and adjusted my own self-confidence in things mechanical down a couple of notches because clearly I couldn't even fix a pannier to a bike properly.

That's what mansplaining does: if you know you're in the right it's belittling and infuriating, and if you're not sure it drains your confidence. And the more it happens the worse it feels.

I just wanted to thank you for doing the thread in the first place. I have taught three other women the word mansplain since I read the original post, and it's just so amazingly useful for an exact kind of experience that took whole sentences to describe before.

You are signing up to get treated like shit in a whole new way when you become a feminist, and you actually have to try and do something about the situation instead of sitting back and accepting the world as is. Nothing makes me angrier than women being told that they didn't go through something when they most certainly did.

Skeptifem FTW.

A (male) friend of mine came up with some more "man-" words:

Manwaving: the evidence-free arguments in mansplainations.

Mancyclopedia: the source of the "facts" used to support mansplainations.

Mananimous: deigning to notice the presence of you and your tiny ladybrain, and helping you despite those flaws. (from "magnanimous") Example: Stan mananimously came to Vera's rescue, pointing out that she was a Physics major, therefore hung out with nerds, and therefore understood the Monty Python reference.

How about mansplaining in reverse? Assuming that a woman's gender magically grants her extensive knowledge of something, for example, washing clothes, cooking, using the photocopier, getting coffee, sewing, child psychology, knitting, clothing fashions, makeup, or what have you. - Ace

This happens to me all the time, and [unfortunately?] I AM rather good with cooking and childcare, so it usually ends up going something like this:

Me: Why do you assume that just because I'm a woman, I know how to take care of kids?
MAN: But you do, right?
Me: Yes, but that's not the point.
MAN: Then what's the big deal?

I caught a male student doing the same sort of manventing Ace reports to a female student in my lab. I verbally tore him a new one, and she's happily reported she hasn't seen him since. He was genially and smilingly telling her that she's not the best in their joint classes because she performs the best, but because the graders give her extra points; that her lab projects don't actually work, the T.A.s just pretend they do; and her research adviser is just coddling her along pretending she's doing real research.

Unsurprisingly, he can't keep up with her on tests, homework, or labs, and nobody wants to do research with him because he's incapable -- being a whiny baby who makes up stories to cover for their deficiencies makes you unfit for hard research no matter how special you think you are.

My favourite recent mansplaining moment was when my father-in-law launched into a lecture on how to build a 60cm (2ft) high retaining wall in our yard. Although I normally cut him off when he over explains things I know how to do, I was curious to see how long he would continue (20 minutes or so as it turns out). After he'd wound down a little I asked him if he remembered what I did for a living. I am a geotechnical engineer who routinely designs retaining walls up to 20m (65ft) high that hold up entire highways.

Sorry looks like the mansplaining thread is closed to comments.

But check this guy out! He is practically providing material for a mansplaining 101 course as he tries to excuse Pixar's record of twelve features, with twelve male directors and twelve male protagonists.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/05/pixar.php

But Isabel, 12 to 1 is a perfectly fine ratio. Women are represented! But their stories are always "other" and "different" so we can't have too much of them. Instead, most of the stories need to be the ones that appeal to crowds -- not pander to crowds, but truly catch the crowds' attention because they show things that everyone is interested in! And besides, one Pixar movie wasn't about a dude -- it was about a rat. So there!

My summary. Thanks for taking him to task on that ratio thing. Math is so cool, no?

And Comrade, don't forget all of the lady producers at Pixar that prove there is NO SEXISM AT ALL. If Pixar was really sexist, every lady producer would be turning up her cute little nose at a good paycheck and the possibility of gaining enough power to maybe change things.

And not only did the "lady producer" point out that she is a MOM to the guys, but that really is the way things work for most female producers. It really sucks; I'm a sometimes line producer (on live-action films), and the guys on the crews actually refer to me as "mom" half the time.

Yeah, a totally non-sexist industry.

I love how he mansplained (I made it clear from the beginning that I was a veteran of the business) that animator/directors used to have engineering backgrounds (WTF??), but now the techniques have been made more "accessible", and soon female animators will be graduating from animation schools and heading down the pipeline and all will be well!

Because in the World of Pixar (it's not a studio, it's a World) a director has a Vision, and no one (not even the Disney suits) dares interfere with that vision! yeah right. And male animation school graduates have "visions" about males. And producer moms don't need special skills- except being supportive, multi-tasking Moms, which women are great at!

Anyway, how could the studio be considered sexist when they've just greenlighted film #13 to be directed by a female who has a "vision" about a Princess? Is that your definition of sexist? if it is maybe you're just projecting your own experiences?

Yup. The whole industry is sexist, and Pixar is no exception. Why (some) guys refuse to acknowledge that is (almost) a mystery to me.

"The Myth of Black Disingenuity": Exploring the Intersection of African American History and the History of Technology

thusspakezuska — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:01:54 +0000

"The Myth of Black Disingenuity": Exploring the Intersection of African American History and the History of Technology

I failed to produce this post in time for DNLee's Diversity in Science carnival - Black History Month: Broadening STEM Participation at Every Level. That's mostly because I had a bunch of personal stuff going on in the past couple weeks that just wouldn't leave me alone. I think I'll be back to more regular blogging now.

You might have already read my brief post on Hercules, the chef enslaved by George Washington who eventually escaped to freedom. In it I noted "It was no small thing to be a chef under such circumstances, and the degree of technical skill required was surely astonishing." Even the highest tech 18th century kitchen still demanded a range and depth of technical competence that today's average pampered cook just can't imagine.

When I read about Hercules in that fantastic set of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I might not have given much thought to the degree of technical skill he must have possessed to turn out state dinners in such circumstances. What put me in the state of mind to ponder such matters was a book I had recently begun browsing: A Hammer in Their Hands: A Documentary History of Technology and the African-American Experience, ed. Carroll Pursell. This book would be worth its price if only for the introductory essay which contextualizes the collection of primary sources that follows with the intersection of African-American history and the history of technology, all in a few short pages. Pursell speaks of the "prehistories" of these fields, and notes the following:

...in the words of one women's historian, they tended to be recuperative, liberal, and individualist. They were recuperative in the sense that they attempted to discover and bring to the front people and episodes that had been long hidden behind the American metanarrative of progress through the political efforts of white men. They were liberal in that they tended to buy into that predominant notion of inevitable progress, and wanted only for it to apply also to their subjects. And individualistic because they celebrated the personal achievements of those persons who had met and overcome challenges and roadblocks to success.
Gradually, however, both fields have become more complex, more theoretical, more radical in the sense of looking at the social and cultural patterns that shape experiences and the meanings we take from them. Both technology and race are now understood to be socially constructed, not fixed categories but ones that are always contested and historically contingent.

In particular, Pursell notes, the privileging of design in histories of technology constructs the field in a manner that leads inevitably to the absence of African-Americans from those studies. And yet, as he says, "design is hardly the whole of technology". Who makes them? is only one question we can ask about technologies and tools. "...[H]ow do they work, what do they do, who owns, operates, maintains, repairs them, and what do they mean?" are others. But Europeans have tended to value more technologies and tools that most closely approximate their own, and historians have tended to pay attention more to technologies and tools that change over time and/or that are in the public sphere. You can guess what that has meant for those "not white enough and not sufficiently manly" as Pursell puts it .

Competence with tools is one mark of a man. Pursell considers the phrase "Yankee ingenuity". If this masculine ideal writ large on the American consciousness is to make sense, then whatever women do, whatever is associated with people of color, needs to be redefined as not-really-technology. Thus the kitchen, where you will find women, is not a technological site. And if an enslaved black man is using some of the same tools that white men are, then up will spring myths about incompetent slaves breaking their hoes in the fields.

The reality is that George Washington was greatly vexed at the loss of a highly skilled laborer whose services he'd had the use of at no cost. He spent a great deal of time and energy trying to locate Hercules after he escaped, in order to return him to his enslavement. In this he was not alone. A Hammer in Their Hands presents a number of runaway slave advertisements from the Virginia Gazette, and a compliation profile of runaway slaves from 1730 to 1787 in Virginia and South Carolina. The runaway slave advertisements show that the craft skills of the slave were almost always included as part of the description - as part of the identity of the slaves. The compilation table lists a range of craft skills including carpenters, sawyers, coopers, blacksmiths, waterman, shoemaker, planter, ferryman, doctor, ironwork, etc.

A Hammer in Their Hands is the companion volume to Technology and the African American Experience, and the fine introductory essay of the latter explores what author Bruce Sinclair calls "the myth of black disingenuity". To deconstruct this myth, it is not sufficient to go back and reclaim black heroes of the past, says Sinclair. We must look at how white Americans have constructed the "Yankee ingenuity" myth whereby technological expertise is intimately intertwined with American democratic ideals, masculine identity, and whiteness. Sinclair argues for turning our usual approach upside down. The history of invention is always an exciting story to tell, and reclaiming black inventors is a worthy project. But given that for so long it was illegal for blacks to own patents, that their creative work was stolen from them, that the process of patenting itself required an access to the legal system and capitol that most poor people and people of color just didn't have - it behooves us to look at the worlds of consumption and labor as well as the world of invention.

... if we intend a truly inclusive history... then we have to take into account all those people whose most crucial encounter with machines and technological systems takes place on the job. And surely it is the case that, in the normal, daily working of the world, skill and experience count for as much as abstract knowledge and formal training. What makes this fact important to us is that by defining technical knowledge and creativity in broad terms we immediately reveal hosts of African-Americans who had previously been excluded from the story. We find them planning the layout of South Carolina rice fields, creating pottery, fashioning the furniture now highly prized by collectors, using sewing machines, running and fixing cotton gins, molding iron in Henry Ford's assembly-line factories, and fishing in the ocean for schools of menhaden.

There is so much more in these two volumes than ever I could begin to touch on in one puny blog post. They are the kind of books you don't have to read in a linear fashion - you could dip into them here and there, go back to them again and again, make connections with other things you are reading. Anyone working in history of technology ought to own them, anyone interested in the topic ought to read them, and anyone teaching engineering students in the U.S. ought to make them aware of these books, in my opinion.

Encountering these books has started me thinking in a different way about technology. I am quite used to looking through the gender lens, but now I see that I have really been missing a great big huge piece of things, And I cannot believe it. If I could describe the way my (non)thinking about race and technology went before, it might have been something like "well, people of color have been shut out of technology since forever, so there isn't really a whole lot to say about it. Except that of course we need to get more people of color into technology fields." Perhaps I might also have noted something about how ancient peoples were very good at astronomy and geometry, or some such blah blah. Well, one can always hope to do better in the future. I am not dead yet.

thusspakezuska Tue, 03/09/2010 - 09:01

Tags

Gendering Technology

Manly Men

race matters

Why Aren't You Reading This?

This is really interesting! It's hard not to see similar narratives emerging with the development of new technologies even today. This seems like a really valuable book, and a valuable discussion to have in science and technology.

Hello-

Posting this wonderful information on HBCU- for young people to read, and digest from another point of view.

Thank you

M. Fernandez
Fmr.Adj.Prof. Cultural Anthropology

Reminds me of the excellent, though probably slightly more factual,"Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail," Harvard University Press, 1997, which also describes the experience and subsequent dissapearance of black men (free and slave) from a technical field. For an interview with the author http://seacoastnh.com/blackhistory/jacks.html

Hi,

I wish there was more meat to this; I'm skeptical. It sounds an awful lot like redefining "technological achievement" so that African Americans can be found to have made a larger impact than previously thought.

That's a questionable road to go down, if this is truly the premise.

You summarize the author as saying,

"...the privileging of design in histories of technology constructs the field in a manner that leads inevitably to the absence of African-Americans from those studies."

I find that to be a weird thing to say. Our culture values invention and understanding of technology over simple use. Personally, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Sigh. Stuart, have you READ anything in either of the books I discuss here? You can read both introductory essays on the web if you click on the links above. Read them and try to think a little before you get all huffy and defensive of the status quo. And what, exactly, are you defending? How can you possibly be skeptical if you don't even know what you are talking about?

If you would trouble yourself for an instant to actually do some reading, and follow it up with some thinking - if you would even bother to try thinking hard about even the statement you quoted - that would be good. For example, you would learn that the authors are not suggesting devaluing or throwing out design as a subject for study and investigation.

You say "our culture values design and understanding of technology over simple use." There are a couple of things to complicate that statement. Creation of design is but one aspect of it. "Understanding of technology" does, indeed, fall under the purview that the authors of these books are talking about. "Use", on the other hand, is not just simple. Conventional historical mythologizing would like you to believe it is so - that's one way the narrative of technology as white and masculine keeps being rewritten - but it is not true.

Taking a look at something other than just the creation of design does not negate design but it does give us a broader and more complete look at technology's history. It is fascinating that doing so can be so threatening.

Zuska,

Thanks for the reply.

First, you accuse me of "[getting] all huffy and defensive", and wanting to support the status quo and not knowing what I'm "talking about". This is an ad hominem attack --- a logical fallacy --- so right off the bat you sacrifice your own credibility. I would be more careful about this in the future.

In fact, if you read my comment, you'll see that I carefully restricted to my conclusions the inferences I could draw from reading your own post. E.g., "if this is truly the premise", "You summarize the author as saying...".

Finally, you don't directly address the main points I raised, preferring instead to end your comment with a final ad hominem. In summary, your response does nothing to advance your point of view or position.

you're right. You're not dead yet...and neither am I. This is a great post. I'll add it to the carnival. And don't forget to submit to the March Women's History month carnival.

While the historical aspects are a very intriguing read, the conclusion is driven by political desire, not provable facts. We know that well educated African Americans are as capable as the next (white) guy, and that they were denied that education on racial grounds for centuries. From their the articles seem to conclude that despite that handicap they contributed to the "Yankee ingenuity" behind the scenes but were denied recognition, and I don't see the (accessible) material show that. Somehow we're replacing one set of historical mythologizing, to use Zuska's expression, with a new one because it should have could have been that way, not because we can demonstrate such.

A perfect example is Vivien Thomas, Helen Taussig, and Alfred Blalock. All can be googled

This whole conversation reminds me of when I read about the invention of cotton swabs (q tips). It said something like "cotton swabs were invented by ____(some dude), when he saw his wife wrapping cotton around tooth picks in order to clean her children's ears." I thought a good revision would be "cotton swabs were invented when some dude saw his wife inventing cotton swabs".

Very insightful, the reading offers challenge to the way we are so accustomed to read History from the side of the Victors, the white slave master (in the case of the USA)or the colonial superintendent (in case of Africa)Its high time that people of African descent reject the traditional historian's tendency to read straightforward narratives of progress in the historical record! Perhaps we can learn lessons from Foucault who a argued that we argues that one should seek to reconstitute not large "periods" or "centuries" but "phenomena of rupture, of discontinuity" . The problem, he argues, "is no longer one of tradition, of tracing a line, but one of division, of limits". Instead of presenting a monolithic version of a given period, Foucault argues that we must reveal how any given period reveals "several pasts, several forms of connexion, several hierarchies of importance, several networks of determination, several teleologies, for one and the same science, as its present undergoes change: thus historical descriptions are necessarily ordered by the present state of knowledge, they increase with every transformation and never cease, in turn, to break with themselves" Foucault adopts the term "archaeology" to designate his historical method and he articulates what he means by that term by specifying how his method differs from both traditional his story and the traditional history of ideas. Itâs the adoption of such a method (somewhat similar to what Zuska has done here) that will helps us explore and rekindle meaning from the History of exclusion!

Maternal Sentimentality and "The Box"

thusspakezuska — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:09:00 +0000

Maternal Sentimentality and "The Box"

Not that it matters much with this dreadful film, but if you're worried about spoilers, don't read this post till you've seen the movie. You've been warned. Proceed past the jump at your own risk. Movie trailer can be found here.

Norma and Arthur have been given a box! With a button! Push the button and get a million bucks! Only, well, someone has to die. Dang. Norma's a nice girl, but she pushes the button anyway. And then watches it rise again in all its slow motion phallic majesty.

So, it turns out, the fancy little button boxes are being doled out only to married couples with one child. (Soooo hetereonormative. Gay and lesbian couples with children can be only too glad to have been left out of this marriage-associated privilege.) And it seems it's the doggone women who are doing the button-pushing every time. As each woman lays her hand upon that red-topped phallus, the husband of some previous sorry-assed couple shoots his wife through the heart. Soon, it will be the new couple's turn to enact the domestic violence drama - with a twist.

You see, in each case, the woman begs - she begs, I tell you - her beloved to put a bullet in her heart, the heart that is filled to overflowing with love for him and their child. Tears roll down Cameran Diaz's cheeks as she proclaims her undying love for what's-his-name, and how she will wait for the day when he at last joins her on the other side in eternity, blah blah blah. No, no, he protests, I cannot kill you. But he does it anyway, because there's some other woman somewhere who can't keep her hand off that million-dollar mechanical cock, and because he must kill her, because her life is required to save the life of their child, and it must be at his hand - she cannot take her own life.

Well, not really save the life of the child, per se. The child has been kidnapped by... I don't know, lightning bolt-wielding space aliens from Mars or something, who have rendered him deaf and blind. If Daddy shoots Mommy, Junior will magically and instantly have his sight and hearing restored.

Apparently, despite all the tv time logged in Norma and Arthur's household, none of it was allocated to watching The Miracle Worker. They spend all of about two minutes deciding that yes, the only solution is for Mommy to die, and none of this time is spent discussing whether or not a deaf-blind child could have any reasonable quality of life - especially if he still had both of his parents living and loving him, both free of alien mind control. But I digress.

The salient point in all this is that Mommy is the spouse begging the other to shoot her on behalf of the child. Because while this convoluted script riddled with plot holes begs you to suspend disbelief in quantities you didn't even know you possessed, even the crazy writers knew that nobody was going to buy a climactic scene in which Daddy begs Mommy to shoot him for the sake of the kid.

No, that particular bit of garbled nonsense absolutely depends upon us all being ass-deep in cultural notions of maternal sentimentality. Of course Cameron Diaz will weep in a most fetching manner and practically come with sanctified grievous joy over the notion that she can sacrifice her life for her child! With what subdued, final erotic pleasure does she grasp the revolver barrel and pull it close, nestled against her bosom, so that her husband can aim his last bullet into her straight and true.

Can you, for one microsecond, imagine a handsome white male actor in a heterosexual role playing that same scene, and having it make any sort of sense to the mass viewing audience? I think not. We don't have a shared discourse of men being will to do anything, sacrifice anything, for their children - we don't have a discourse of paternal sentimentality.

Who knows, maybe originally the script had guys hittin' the button. But the wise heads in Hollywood said, "Aliens who control lightning? Yes. Floating boxes of water that are portholes to the afterlife? Sure. Some dude with half his face missing wandering all over Richmond in broad daylight and attracting absolutely no attention? Why not. But weeping men begging to be shot to save their kid's sight and hearing? Who's gonna buy that kind of crazy?"

Those damn space aliens. They thought they were accurately testing the morals and ethics of human beings. If only instead of a phallic button, they'd provided each couple with a strokable velvety cleft, or a sensuous, supple, peach-sized ball with a nipply appendage. The d00dz would have their hands all over those puppies, and they wouldn't be waiting till fifteen minutes before the 24-hour deadline expired. Then, when they were faced with the final test of volunteering to be shot for the kid, they'd be all "honey, we'll get him the best schools and teachers! We've got a million bucks to spend on him, remember?!!?!?!" And since patriarchy rulz, he'd wrestle the gun out of her hand, fire off the one bullet harmlessly, and life would go on, no matter what the next d00d was doing with his velvety cleft-in-a-box. The aliens would be completely confounded because their spooky action-at-a-distance experiment wouldn't be working as planned, and eventually they'd give up and go away.

Now that would be a slightly more believable movie. But I guess a script like that would be a much more difficult sell than one trotting out reliable tropes of maternal sentimentality and the irresistible power of the phallus.

thusspakezuska Sat, 11/14/2009 - 16:09

Tags

Isn't It Ironic?

Manly Men

Stereotypes We Know And Love

Speaking of aliens..."District 9," reminded me greatly of how I felt as a single parent. Whether it was my five years in that position in the military or when I came "home." Employers are not particularly sympathetic to men who are raising small children. And most of those folks reminded me a great deal of the 'monsters' in "District 9."

You made that sound WAY more interesting than the trailer made it look.

Seriously? That's the plot of a movie?

...

That sounds like some seriously boring-ass garbage.

I seem to recall that this was originally a Twilight Zone episode in the mid-'80s with Brad Davis? Maybe the plot is so thin because they stretched out 25 minutes of improbability into a whole movie, and had to fill in the gaps with something?

There were better episodes to make into movies. I wonder why they chose this one?

I disagree. Not with Zuska or anyone here... I disagree because the entire idea is so disagreeable.

Are you sure it's realistic to think the men would think of "the best schools and teachers! We've got a million bucks to spend on him, remember?" If we're talking reality based wouldn't he rationalize that one parent has to survive to spend the money so it may as well be him, then wrestle the gun from her and shoot her. (I'm basing this cynicism on the popularity of Fox talking heads)

That would be an even less appealing movie LOL

I think the ending would be best if mommy would tell daddy that he's not the real daddy , shoot daddy then kid is A ok, she has the 1 million dollars and goes into the sunset with super hunk who's the real baby daddy.

I think the best ending would be if social services were to decide (fairly reasonably) that a man who shoots his wife is NOT EXACTLY THE BEST PERSON to be looking after a child, and the kid gets adopted by a gay couple who never get bothered by crazy aliens :)

And they all life happily ever after.

@lab rat: right on , your ending is so much better.

Having seen this film with Zuska I solemnly swear that this is both a true account of the film and an analysis that's much funnier than the film is suspenseful.

They could have written an ending that has the man die and preserve his masculine, heterosexual image. Of course, he'd have to be portrayed as all stoic and dutiful, no begging, so nobody would think he was less of a man, but still.

No, they wanted to make it follow a particular story about how women can't be trusted with temptation. I suppose the button was candy apple red. Any sign of talking snakes?

Cooking: A Primitive Protection Racket

thusspakezuska — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:37:23 +0000

Cooking: A Primitive Protection Racket

Bloggingheads.tv has John Horgan interviewing Richard Wrangham of Harvard on a variety of topics related to his new book Catching Fire. The part of interest to me - and to our ongoing discussion on patriarchy - relates to cooking as a "primitive protection racket" in which men agree to protect women's food supply in return for being fed so they can just hang out and do manly shit. It's a fascinating discussion, if you can get past Horgan giggling in sheepish delight every time Wrangham points out what a shitty deal patriarchy is for women.

Interestingly, this section of the interview is advertised as "ancient connections between food and sex" but it would more properly be described as "ancient connections between food and the sexual division of labor". I guess "sex" is more sexy and sells better than "sexual division of labor". Because Wrangham clearly points out that the sexual division of labor that involves women cooking and feeding men is NOT related to who's having sex with whom.

He also clearly makes the point that this sexual division of labor is not a result of our biology, but a consequence of a choice of a particular set of social relations - one of which, in modern industrial societies, we have chosen in many ways to undo. Single men are able to feed themselves, if only by ordering pizza, and married men often do the cooking these days.

Incidentally, the mini-review of Wrangham's book on Amazon illustrates why the term "mankind" is not an appropriate substitute for "humankind":

By making food more digestible and easier to extract energy from, Wrangham reasons, cooking enabled hominids' jaws, teeth and guts to shrink, freeing up calories to fuel their expanding brains. It also gave rise to pair bonding and table manners, and liberated mankind from the drudgery of chewing (while chaining womankind to the stove).

The second sentence is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It sounds sort of nice on first glance with that oppositional mankind and womankind. Until you realize that those who were liberated from the drudgery of chewing were, well, everyone, women as well as men. The sentence sounds like it's working to say men got liberated from x while women got chained to y by the move to cooking, but that's not what happened. Humans got liberated from x, while simultaneously, a subset of humans, women, got chained to y. Using the term humankind would make it clearer that women simultaneously benefited from and were harmed by the move to cooked food. Using mankind as a substitute for humankind attempts to work both meanings into this sentence. First, the fuller and true meaning, that humans benefited from something that also harmed a subset of humans. Second, the less true oppositional meaning that men (only) gained and women were harmed. That second oppositional meaning also serves to reinforce the notion that mankind really means men and that women are a special (lesser) case of mankind - a subtextual meaning that the use of the word humankind in this instance would not convey.

thusspakezuska Wed, 06/24/2009 - 06:37

Tags

Gendering Technology

Manly Men

What They're Saying

It must be terribly hard to collect evidence of the fact that prehistoric women did the cooking, rather than the men or everyone at once. I'm quite impressed. Note that this is not like agriculture where (I have read) female skeletons show signs of wear that suggest they spent a lot of time grinding grain, and male skeletons less so.

Do prehistoric female skeletons have more burn marks on their skeletons or something?

From the little anthropology I know, I suspect the real difference in such roles and associated protection racket that developed results from contrasts of the hunter-versus-gatherer approach.

I also suspect detailing my reasoning would be unlikely to win me friends here.

Nice point, Zuska. Wrangham's work is often sensationalized and made to appear even more reductionist than it actually is, and I like how you used language to parse the meaning out a little better.

And abb3w, pregnancy and lactation probably explain more than hunting and gathering.

I think I remember reading about the remains of Inuit women, who had a substantial load of soot in their lungs which was attributed to cooking. Extremely careful archeological excavation of ancient remains might be able to show lung carbon differences because black carbon is resistant to microbial degradation. 14C should be able to demonstrate the approximate age of that carbon. Remains found in caves are probably too contaminated with soot from fires used for light to be useful.

Kate: And abb3w, pregnancy and lactation probably explain more than hunting and gathering.

I'm less convinced on lactation, but pregnancy (or men's lack of it) is the root of it all, absolutely. However, I was thinking specifically of pregnancy's impact on the logistics of hunting versus gathering. What the heck; I never was good at winning friends anyway.

Gathering of food plants makes up the baseload on early diet, and is low-risk (if you can learn to tell tell raspberries from poison ivy), but may be nutrient deficient. Hunting provides higher caliber supplemental calories, at higher risk to those doing the hunting; much higher risk if the game animals are large.

Specializing in one or the other allows developing greater expertise. Presuming men and women are equally competent innate hunters, they are equally likely to get killed off hunting; however, the loss of a woman (between menarche and menopause) has an inexorable impact on birth rate; while one man and two women can produce children as fast (within a few percent) as two men and two women, two men and one woman are (few percent) half as fast. Ergo, cultural survival advantage goes to tribes where men specialize in hunting, and women in gathering.

The protection racket is proceeded by light prostitution; the women favor the better hunters over the lesser. They also have an advantage in obtaining an effectively permanent arrangement with a man consistently better at providing larger survival margins if the woman can negotiate it (dawn of marriage) even if that arrangement isn't exclusive (dawn of polygyny). but since there's some element of luck as well as skill it was advantageous for the women to retain some flexibility about that (dawn of cheating), or to have multiple "permanent" relationships (polyandry).

The "protection racket" crops up when some hunting bastard realizes that he can use his 1337 skilz from killing animals in other ways, such as getting long pig and associated incidentals from the next tribe (the dawn of resource wars), and a little intimidation of lesser hunters and skilled gatherers for a few more calories when he's less lucky (the dawn of patriarchal monarchy and taxation) This may also be why polygyny was more common than polyandry.

The arrival of urbanization/agriculture shifted the nature of hunting/gathering and associated social structures. Monogamy becomes a bit more useful, since having large concentrations of young males with zero prospect of getting laid is not good for social stability. A mix of polyandry and polygyny might also be viable, but having "sugar daddy" arrangements is more beneficial to a society's growth than "sugar momma" arrangements, and bigger society means bigger battalions and thus the favor of the gods. Those societies which banned polyandry seemed to have historically gotten advantage relative to their neighbors, possibly as side effect of removing the prospect of a comfortable (but genetically risky) sugar boy position and motivating him to work harder at getting laid. Male infanticide might also increase stability, but there's more benefit to society to send them off to try expanding territory by killing the men in the next city over. (Dawn of war of "we can, so there".) Slavery develops as by-product of such war, since a live (but perhaps castrated) male worker may be more useful than a corpse once eating the body is too likely to vector too many nasty diseases. Concubinage and subjugation of women follows similarly, since it's of significant advantage for the overall society to reward the successful soldier, even when the change in attitudes is marginally detrimental to the sub-society of local females.

The modern industrial age shifted hunting/gathering, the balance of forces, and associated social structures further; time doubtless will shift it further yet.

Of course, this is all just a nice narrative, without strong analysis of actual data.

Ah, a Just-So story. Amazing how they always seem to reinforce our current beliefs and prejudices obtained from our existing patriarchal social arrangements.

Zuska: Amazing how they always seem to reinforce our current beliefs and prejudices obtained from our existing patriarchal social arrangements.

I do not think I would agree with what you appear to mean by "reinforce" in this context. The narrative description doesn't say this is "good", and especially doesn't say things should stay this way, just this may have contributed to what happened. In fact, I specifically noted time doubtless will shift it further yet. I expect the approach of the resource horizon and the downsides to exponential population growth, for example, will fundamentally undermine the advantage to constantly increasing numbers. Similarly, the differences in risks for obtaining one's subsistence using the modern replacements for hunting and gathering may favor radically altering the balance of gender roles... or at least, "radically" in a historical time frame; a few decades, perhaps.

There may be better explanations for how existing social arrangements became patriarchal to the extent that they are; especially considering the above sketch was done without numerical data. If you are aware of such data significantly contradicting this sketch, pointing them out might be helpful.

On the other hand, science is also essentially a "just so story"; or rather, science in the sense of the body of knowledge referred to by that term. The anthropological practice and philosophical discipline (both also commonly referred to as "science") consists of coming up with candidate "stories" (that describe what is and not what isn't), and deciding which one is most probably correct.

As philosophical discipline, Engineering consists of selecting goals, coming up with choices that might result in those goals, and evaluating which choices make the goal most likely to be achieved, using the best available "just so" story from science(knowledge) until science(discipline/practice) comes up with a more likely "just so" story. In anthropological practice, engineering also often crosses over to doing science(discipline/practice) for a while in search of a more accurate "just so" story, since that choice may help identify other choices which will improve the chances of achieving the goal. It also will sometimes simplify "just so stories" to an approximation that is more mathematically tractable, but still relies on the underlying "just so story" thereby.

My point behind all this? If you are trying to do social engineering and chose to outright reject a "just so story" for any reason other than having an alternative that is more probable, then what limited history I am aware from other fields of engineering leads me to infer that this social engineering effort will be more likely to fail.

That does not leave me happy.

I am not entirely sure that you are working with the most commonly understood definition of "just so" story.

Zuska: I am not entirely sure that you are working with the most commonly understood definition of "just so" story.

Quoth Wikipedia, Essentially, the key difference between a "just so story" and a scientific hypothesis is that the latter can be proven wrong, while the former cannot. Or from the rude, "It's not science, shut up."

More exactly, however, I would say "proven wrong" is an oversimplification of "proven to be not most probably correct"; and more loosely, is overnarrowing from "tested". In Popper's terminology, it's a difference between reliance on Falsification alone, and the combination of Falsification and Simplicity. While (largely due to Popper) current anthropological practitioners of Science emphasize Falsification for demarcation, both Science as anthropological practice and Science as philosophical discipline include both tools in testing.

And in this sense, there's a bit more fuzziness in demarcation.

Structural mechanics can both describe "the bridge fell" and "the bridge did not fall"; and if there's no longer any way to find out whether the steel used 0.5% or 1% carbon content, it may not be falsifiable for the particular evidence. However, since it can say "the design would have fallen at 0.5%, and not fallen at 1%; we posit that 0.5% was used, which is consistent with the observed falling of the bridge", it's Simpler than saying "the design would have fallen if undermined by a passing troupe of fairies, and not fallen if not undermined by a passing troupe of fairies; we posit that a troupe of fairies passed, which is consistent with the observed falling of the bridge", due to (roughly speaking) the more baroque addition.

There are also cases where it may not be economically or otherwise practical to obtain further data to support or refute by experiment. Producing large numbers of feral children and a few locations for long-term social isolation and covert monitoring thereof would allow testing for the above social evolution, but would be not only be ludicrously expensive, but ethically monstrous. In such cases, the "just so story" nature even a scientific hypothesis partakes will increase. This is especially the case for dealing with historical evidence and hypotheses in sociology, but modern particle physics such as "string theory" is getting painted into a similar corner (although more finance than ethics). It's not a clear demarcation, but a continuum -- at least from my vantage as an amateur with an interest in the history/philosophy of science/engineering who routinely talks with professionals in that field, but as yet remains on the sidelines.

However, when data set size effectively cannot be increased experimentally (or even once it has been), "less Simple" (formally defined) remains "not the most probably correct", and thus makes even "Just So Stories" testable.

Do you want to get into the math underlying this?

zayÄ±flama: I am aware from other fields of engineering leads me to infer that this social engineering effort will be more likely to fail.

More likely than not? Yes. Sociological Engineering isn't a very well-developed field yet, despite the assortment of "professionals" out there. I suspect the root is that far too few such are willing to adjust their measure of the competing hypotheses no matter the new evidence produced from the experimental engineering attempts. However, by "more likely to fail", I was referring to comparing efforts made rejecting validity of a described mechanism without having a more probable alternative, versus accepting validity of a described mechanism (until said more probable alternative is produced).

Also note that by "described mechanism" I refer not to the current conditions themselves (which would indeed be an attempt to "reinforce our current beliefs and prejudices obtained from our existing patriarchal social arrangements"), but to the forces which led to the current conditions' existence.

I think zayiflama is a spammer. I'll be deleting that comment.

Erm, abb3w lost me at the notion that women came up with marriage. That strikes me as highly unlikely.

And the fantasy that men would do *all* the hunting is just that, a fantasy. When hunting is a critical part of the food supply, women hunt. Always have. Waiting around for some dude to provide is a safe bet you're going to have to do without.

I can think of documented cases I've read of where women for periods of their lives did not hunt meat they needed but left it up to a husband, but there was never any doubt the women in question would hunt for themselves if the husband didn't come home.

Helen Huntington: Erm, abb3w lost me at the notion that women came up with marriage.

Marriage is a sufficiently complicated social technology that saying "came up with" seems inaccurate. I was suggesting that they would benefit from the "effectively permanent" aspect of "brings the hunt here first". On the other hand, the good-but-not-spectacular hunter would benefit from the consistent calorie baseload provided by a skilled gatherer; and most ecologies wouldn't sustain having hunters spectacular enough to maintain an all-carnivore diet, so there would generally be a lot more of those around. I suppose the question is why an "effectively permanent" partnership would be a product of the specialization; perhaps that's more a dispute resolution mechanism?

Helen Huntington: And the fantasy that men would do *all* the hunting is just that, a fantasy.

Agreed; similarly, women doing all the gathering. "Specialization" is not the same as "exclusive". However, while lion is reportedly very tasty, I don't know of cultures where young women were encouraged to kill one.

Helen Huntington: Waiting around for some dude to provide is a safe bet you're going to have to do without.

I noted both that the bulk of the calories in a hunter-gatherer culture are usually from gathering, so the incompetent/lazy hunter would seem more likely to be the one left seriously having to do without.

Helen Huntington: I can think of documented cases I've read of where women for periods of their lives did not hunt meat they needed but left it up to a husband, but there was never any doubt the women in question would hunt for themselves if the husband didn't come home.

Again, specialization and exclusivity are different things, and this starts in the pre-agriculture era/societies prior to the impact of later technologies.

I am currently reading "Cooking with Fire" and was going to email you about Wrangham's continual use of "Man-the-Hunter" hypothesis as I thought this was out of date. And very irritating.

The book is disappointing. I think the hypothesis could be a good one, but Wrangham does not appear to understand evolution or chemistry very well. For example, his section on what cooking does to food, in particular when he writes about the Maillard reaction, totally sucks, but then I probably the only person to notice.

abb3w: And in this sense, there's a bit more fuzziness in demarcation.

Picking up my Popper this evening, it opened by chance to a page suggesting this is not a new idea: My thesis is that what we call 'science' is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition -- that of critically discussing the myth. Before, there was only the first-order tradition. A definite story was handed on. Now there was still, of course, a story to be handed on, but with it went something like a silent accompanying text of a second-order character: "I hand it on to you, but tell me what you think of it. Think it over. Perhaps you can give us a different story." Presumably, therefore, these days this vantage is about as uncontroversial an anthropological observation as the rest of his work.

(Google turned up here a blog post on both the quote and feminism, which I note only because it seemed both easily found and epic in stupidity. Please don't mistake me for holding THAT position.)

Wow, that abb3w d00d is so not getting it.

Zuska - thanks so much for hosting this series...I've been away from the intertubes for a while and am still playing catch up on previous posts, so I hope to have more to contribute in the future.

In light of the "Just-So Stories", have you read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "The Woman Who Never Evolved"? It's a really well done smack-down of patriarchy-reinforcing evo-psych bullshit that gets spewed by, well, just about everybody, as written by a well-known and very accomplished primatologist. (Geez, people are going to start thinking that I'm spamming ScienceBlogs with this book review, but every time I hear this kind of "men evolved to be assholes, and it's in women's best evolutionary interest to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" crap I just want to pull out this book and beat people over the fracking head with it.)

Heh heh...some things definitely do bear repeating...sadly.

The idea of evolution gave rise to the idea of Social Darwinism; much of the patriarchy-reinforcing evo-psych likely falls into the same category of sloppy reasoning. However, this does not mean that all evo-psych reasoning is inherently sloppy, even if such reasoning that suggests patriarchy is reasonably the probable state for primitive human societies.

BTW, the title is "The Woman That Never Evolved". The local library has a copy; thank you for the recommendation.

ambivalent academic: In light of the "Just-So Stories", have you read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "The Woman Who Never Evolved"?

Hrdy's book looks like she will probably help provide me some useful insight to the nature and extent of my oversimplification (starting by page 6). However, given the trivially dismissive reception my remarks received, I would also recommend others here (re)reading it. Quoting from the (1999 edition) preface: "For those men and women who might wish to change the rules of this engagement, passionate responses without hardheaded analysis may be cathartic, but they are a luxury we can scarcely afford."

Zuska's Outreach Project For D00dly D00ds

thusspakezuska — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:59:05 +0000

Zuska's Outreach Project For D00dly D00ds

Well, that's quite a vigorous discussion we've all been having these past few days over proto-feminist d00ds, no? I am grateful to you all for your participation and for the many good suggestions made to help proto-feminist d00ds along the path of growth. In case some of you missed it, Comrade Physioprof offered his own handy-dandy guide for d00dly commenters over at Isis's place.

With all the interest in these two posts, I'm thinking that maybe we need to spend a little more time talking to/with/for the d00dly d00ds. Herewith, I am proposing Zuska's Outreach Project For D00dly D00ds. Specifically, I'm going to suggest that those of you who are interested, get a copy of Allan Johnson's The Gender Knot and read along with me. We'll take a chapter a week and discuss here on blog for everyone's pleasure and enlightenment. Discussion of first chapter to commence on Wednesday, May 27, which for you U.S. folks is the Wednesday after Memorial Day weekend. Now you have something to read while grilling the burgers during the cookout.

thusspakezuska Fri, 05/15/2009 - 05:59

Tags

Announcements

Manly Men

Positive Actions

Who Needs to Study Men?

Zuska's Outreach Project For D00dly D00ds

d00ds

gender knot

patriarchy

Zuska, do you also recommend this for undereducated femly fems? Are there additional books you would recommend? (I managed to miss the women's studies classes in college, though I did go to a girl's prep school.)

JustaTech,

I'm also an undereducated feminist gal, and I started reading the few pages available and it seems like a good read.

Now, I just have to figure out where my student card is so I can take out a copy from my library.

Z, you have a "who needs to study men?" category! Sign me up. I don't know enough about them already. It's very equality of you to show some luv for the d00dly d00ds.

I love book clubs. Fantastic idea! The book is a nice beginning for proto-types to a discussion about privilege and Patriarchy. w00t! excellent choice.

Assuming my local bookshops carry it, I'll be following.

JustaTech, I think women can learn from the book as well as men, patriarchy affects all of us, and we all have a stake in unraveling the gender knot.

Deatkin, you can order it at amazon if your local bookstore doesn't have it.

I'm particularly interested in the "what can men do about it" question, since several of my d00dly friends often say they feel helpless to, well, help. Looking forward to hearing more about this.

What a great idea! I'm another under-educated feminist - I don't know how I missed a womens' studies course in college...oh right, it was only open to womens' studies majors (WTF!?!?). Anyway, I'm really looking forward to this!

I look forward to it.

- Another "undereducated femly fem"

I am so there! I recently read The Gender Knot for the first time (I missed those Women's Studies courses in undergrad too). Like LostMarbles, I started with the few pages available in the Google preview, then bought a cheap used copy at abebooks dot com. It is a very good read for femly fems too.

Okay, if it's not too hard, could you do a quick summary each time you discuss a chapter? Maybe a short paragraph? Although, I could probably figure out what it's about from the post.

I doubt I could get the book in English in Rehovot, or in the local language for that matter since it's not in the Institute library. Wouldn't even know where to look. Didn't you spend a year in this city (according to a previous post from a long time ago)? The English language book situation is dire.

Forgot to mention that it costs a lot of money to order international and ship it to here. And the post office charges you even more afterwards as I learned to great chagrin. That's why... Sorry, I can't afford to buy it from the States.

Anonymous, I'll do the best I can to summarize the chapters as we go along.

I did spend time in Rehovat, but only a month, not a year. It was a wonderful experience - I loved it there and learned so much, both in and out of the lab. Everyone welcomed me warmly and did so much to make my visit a great experience.

Coming in late, but this looks like something I should follow. Not sure why everyone seems to think that Women's studies is one of those things every women in academia needs to take. I'm sorry, but I only had one non-engineering elective in my engineering degree, and I took French. If I could do it over, I'd choose philosophy. Women's studies I can learn about for free on the internet and at the library.

Likewise on the coming in late, but I'll participate as much as I can.

What Should a 20-year-old Proto-Feminist Guy Be Reading?

thusspakezuska — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:22:34 +0000

What Should a 20-year-old Proto-Feminist Guy Be Reading?

In the midst of a vigorous discussion on my last post, reader Deatkin expressed his frustrations as to how he might engage in a positive manner in a discussion of feminist issues. In this case, it was not the hairy-legged man-hating feminazi Zuska who was intimidating; it was Comrade Physioprof.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept that the problem lies with me on this... In sum, I may simply be too immature (I'm 20 and a mere undergraduate) to think broadly and imaginatively enough on feminist issues in order for me to reach a conclusion that somebody such as [Comrade Physioprof] would find satisfactory... But instead of attributing comments that you perceive as off-base to some insidious, malignant strain of male paternalism, isn't it more likely that the person is someone like me, genuinely troubled by all the ways in which women are inhibited and made uncomfortable by men in society, but uncertain as to what attitudes we could hold that women would appreciate? Isn't it possible that people like me are actually afraid that self-described male champions of feminism such as yourself will ridicule our attempts to communicate solidarity with feminism and embarrass us in front of the women we are trying to support? That's definitely the case for me.I feel that most men (in my age group, at least) want to support women's issues, and maybe it is our fault if we support them inappropriately, but it is definitely your fault if we persist in our ways because you mocked rather than enlightened us. I would appreciate, but am certainly not demanding, a comment, detailing some of the ways in which you explicitly and constructively promote feminism in general and women in academia in particular, and providing some sort of template from which a male such as myself could go about doing the same.

I will not go so far as to agree with Deatkin that it is CPP's fault (or anyone else's fault) if he "persists in his ways" because of mocking or anything else. If one is committed to social justice and equity, then one must proceed down that path no matter what obstacles, mocking included, one runs into. Getting your feelings hurt is not sufficient cause to stop educating yourself about how to be a better human being.

But I do think we can make the effort to lend a brother a hand now and then, no? Pass along some good advice, point them to sources of information. I'm not suggesting we baby them and spoon feed them every bit of information they need to have. Just sayin', I didn't come to my gloriously enlightened feminist state all on my own. I had teachers. I took classes. I had books. I had a biweekly reading group of fab feminist babes who pushed me to think.

So, Deatkin, here are Zuska's Guidelines For Dudely Proto-Feminist Development:

Get thee to a bookstore. Or online to Amazon, and purchase for thyself a copy of Allan Johnson's The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. You may also wish to read his Privilege Power and Difference. Mr. Johnson explains to d00ds how being a feminist man does not make your balls shrivel and penis drop off. He explains how patriarchy is actually bad for men, too. I think it's good for men to hear another man talking about these issues.
Taketh thee an introductory women's studies course. And while in said course, try to listen more than speak. When speaking, try to ask questions to clarify points and learn more, rather than to pontificate and explain things to the ladies. If you behave in this manner, you may find that the ladies will occasionally ask you for your perspective. Even if they don't, you will learn a hell of a lot just by listening and reading. I'm not just talking pie in the sky theory, either. You may learn, for example, as one young man I know did, about the existence of the clitoris and its central role in the female orgasm. Women's studies classes are life-changers, I'm tellin' ya.
Read thou freely and often amongst the feminist blogs. You will want to read the women-and-science blogs, of course, if you are a scientist (see here and here for a comprehensive list of links) but you will also want to read others. Bitch, PhD is a good one. Feministe (and anything on their fabulous blogroll), Shakesville, and, let us not forget, Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. Read Echidne's Feminism Series.

This should give you a good start. Try to remember that it's more or less a lifelong process, this un-learning of the prejudices and stereotypes we breathe in daily, that our brains have bathed in since birth. It's a little like gardening. You work the soil, you put in the best-looking plants you can get your hands on, but it's all going to go to hell if you don't water and weed regularly. It's so very easy to fall back into old stereotypes; gender schemas aren't obvious unless you are on the lookout for them. (And check out these tutorials on gender schemas.)

Readers, I ask you: what other resources would you recommend to a 20-year-old proto-feminist d00d? What have you read that was helpful in developing your own feminist viewpoints? Dudes, how did your own feminist journey begin? Leave your stories in the comments, please!

thusspakezuska Mon, 05/11/2009 - 08:22

Tags

Manly Men

Positive Actions

resources

Why Aren't You Reading This?

D00ds - Step AWAY From Your Caves!

thusspakezuska — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:49:29 +0000

D00ds - Step AWAY From Your Caves!

Every manly man of means these days has gotta have a man-cave, right? Every man gotta be a caveman, right?

Wrong. D00ds, step away from your caves! You must read The Caveman Mystique, and if you cannot, as a self-respecting caveman, be bothered to read a whole freakin' book, at least read this post over at The World's Fair. Fab interview with Caveman Mystique author Martha McCaughey.

Maybe if you read the book in a techno-geeky way, say, on Kindle, you could preserve your caveman status even as you are deconstructing it????

Image from Flickr, posted by VonMurr http://www.flickr.com/photos/20193184@N00/920433587

thusspakezuska Tue, 05/05/2009 - 14:49

Tags

Announcements

Blog I Am Reading Today

Manly Men

Naming Experience

Stereotypes We Know And Love

Reminds me of the episode of the British comedy quiz/game show "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" (I have some episodes on cassette) in which one question was about why cooking the meat on a barbeque is traditionally a male role. The official answer pertained to caveman instincts and so on, but I like the answer that was given: "Because women are completely incapable of burning meat properly!"

ROFL where did you get that picture Zuska? It's hilarious!
Adrian -- I like that answer too! That whole men don't cook in the kitchen, they barbecue (which somehow isn't cooking) never mad sense to me.

*made* of course.
That's what I get for not using preview :(

I just googled "caveman" on Flickr and that is one picture that came up. The link to the picture at Flickr is in the post and the picture itself is linked so you can see what else the photographer has done. Glad you liked it; I really thought it was perfect for this post!

Women and Their Sexy Hawt Bodies: Reprise

thusspakezuska — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:25:21 +0000

Women and Their Sexy Hawt Bodies: Reprise

So, to recap:

A couple of women are having a conversation, and the topic turns to tit-ogling. "No one should be staring at my tits in the workplace," they all agree. "That makes me uncomfortable, creates a hostile work environment, and constitutes sexual harassment! How difficult is it to look at my eyes? Staring and ogling is a threatening display of power enacted in a sexual manner. This isn't the Mad Men era. Haven't men figured out how to behave in a professional situation by now?"

A dude at the table next to them has been listening in and feels compelled to pipe up:

"Ladeez, ladeez, ladeez! What's all this fuss about sexual harassment?
How can we not look at your hawt co-ed behinds when you are jogging?
Men are biologically hardwired to look at the boobies!
It's part of mating behavior!
It's nature, baby - you can't fight it!
Why do you women get boob jobs and dress all hawt if you don't want us to look?
Men can't control themselves!
Evolution makes men constantly scan the horizon for lovable boobies!
Why do you hate sex?
It's not sexual harassment unless he gets physical with her!
Looking at boobs is not sexual harassment!
Dress modestly if you don't want to be stared at!
It's your own fault!
Why can't you ladeez think scientifically about why menz look at teh breasticles? That is the REAL question here!
Because if it isn't SCIENTIFIC!!!!11!!1!**** it isn't knowledge - it's ideological!"

The women sigh heavily. One of them opines:

Looking at breasts? Normal

Being creeped out by having your breast leered at? Normal

Are there a complicated balance of social rules required to navigate this, and is self-restraint required to keep looks from becoming leers? You bet.

However, in a workplace it's fairly simple. Please look in my eyes. Or at my nose, if you're East Asian. But not my breasts. If you inadvertantly leer, look at *your* shoes...If we didn't have such a generally screwed up culture with respect to men and women and power and sex then it would probably never come up.

And then finally another d00d sez:

I've disagreed with Zuska before, and largely for me it was an issue of the tone of the post relative to the relative importance, to my perception, of the issue under discussion. But I will admit that I am at times surprised to find how certain notions that are seemingly innocuous and very acceptable, culturally, are, when you break them down to their most essential parts, actually pretty sexist. I didn't even think of them that way at all, but if one is willing to do the work to look critically, it's right there.

And the women said, "Hallelujah Amen, brother!"

And added:

Yup. I think the comments rapidly altered the subject, and you drifted along because you honestly find the new question interesting. My perception is that the comments swiftly turned the subject from something that makes many readers uncomfortable (systematic harassment of women by a minority of ordinary men) to something that we can all pretty much agree on ("noticing" people we find attractive is normal and OK, no matter your sex and sexual orientation). See how that works? Your mileage may vary of course.

Just then, Lora from HR dropped by and gave the official word on the whole mess.

"Really? We should pretend to ourselves that we are completely sexless creatures while we're at work?"

On behalf of personnel managers and HR departments everywhere: Yes, yes, please, for the love of FSM, please imagine while you are at work that you are sexless monks and nuns...

Good heavens, if you want to get a good long social look at your co-workers, do it on your own time at the coffee shop or bar or whatever. I ain't payin' you to lollygag!

Then that Paul Murray d00d came back and said something long and rambling and, I must confess, I just wasn't able to keep listening after this:

Do women feel that they are made to feel, or expected to feel, shame and guilt just for being female?

Oh, Paul. Seriously. What planet are you living on? Is this really something you have to ask about? I mean, doesn't everybody just know this? Paul, Paul, Paul. What are you even doing on this blog??????

This concludes our retrospective of Women and Their Sexy Hawt Bodies. The management wishes to thank all interlocutors because we actually covered some major ground in this conversation. I am absolutely completely serious here. Still to come: When scientists offer up the "biology makes men do it" argument, how are they helping the ultra-right religious wingnuts?

****SCIENTIFIC!!!!11!!1! means "something vaguely about biological hardwiring or evolutionary psychology". It does NOT mean anything to do with feminist psychology, sociology, or analyses of scientific culture and practice.

thusspakezuska Wed, 09/10/2008 - 03:25

Tags

Burns My Shorts

ID Schoolhouse Crusade for Christ

Ludicrous Language

Manifestoes

Manly Men

Our Innate Womanly Natures

sexual harassment

Stereotypes We Know And Love

My girlfriend is in Oman right now, and when they glance upon her cleavage....they propose marriage, without even asking her name!

We have a long way to go, for sure, but there is some reason to give our culture credit for how far it's progressed thus far.

As for looking, I'm with Seinfeld: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. Ya get a sense of it and then you look away."

Also, I don't think this is an issue to be solved via debate on a blog, but will be played out over millions of individuals over decades:

As women make it clear that they have no interest in men who leer, the norm will change. Ironically, men, in their desire to get laid, will be forced to become more gentlemanly.

Zuska: I puke on your shoes.

You imply (not very subtly) that I said: "It's nature, baby - you can't fight it!"

You lie.

Why do you need to lie when you have otherwise perfectly good arguments to make?

Great idea to put the comments into a narrative! I wish more people would do this for interesting comment threads.

That was a fantastic recap. I especially liked "Looking at breasts? Normal -- Being creeped out by having your breast leered at? Normal". If I "can't help" staring at someone's cleavage, I shouldn't be surprised if some woman "can't help" poking me in the eye.

In other news, hawt babe singing about hadrons. Hope you like it :) (The sound's kinda borked, sorry)

Laden, you are such an incoherent gibberer, no one ever has a single fucking clue what the fuck you are ever talking about. Your incomprehensible writing sucks shit, people struggle to glean some kind of point from it, and then you moan and groan about how no one understands you.

Here's a clue my friend: When no one ever understands what you are trying to say, maybe the problem is with you, not the entire rest of the world.

I quote Greg Laden:

However, let's keep track of the biological argument as well. All else being equal, as a society develops on its own, the men are going to be bad unless society makes something else happen. No society ever produced a preponderance of not-bad men without trying very hard to do so, and that is still not working so well.

Emphasis added by me.

Yes, indeedy, it's hard to see how I got "it's nature, baby" out of that!

Also Greg: don't try shoe-puking. You clearly haven't mastered the nuances.

I interpreted that post of Greg's as more of an "It's nature, baby, but we should fight it".
I'd still probably disagree, but it's not nearly as bad as the alternative interpretation.

Naturally Greg would be indignant, because he thinks he's all cool with us ladies and our issues, without having ever bothered to examine some of the drivel that regularly comes out of his mouth. Sorry Greg, no free pass here.

Greg is making an evo-psych argument that men are inherently bad by their biological nature. He says society can try to fight it but that that doesn't work very well either. If that ain't "it's nature baby", then tell me what is.

As I'll argue in a subsequent post, this type of argument is used by right-wing wackaloons to shore up the patriarchy. I have no patience for the "men are bad by nature" crap especially because the flip side is "women are good by nature" and that, my friends, leads down many bad roads.

I'm interested in the "men are bad and women are good" argument that seems to flow "naturally" from all of this. Because, I can't lie, I am just as guilty as the dude next door of ocassionally oogling. Does that make me an exception to the female rule or actually a man?

And Isis is all about gender/sex equality. Yesterday I was called "young lady" and almost put my boot into a man's eye as a result. However, I am surprised by the number of women who have posted comments on a blog I wrote on a similar issue confessing to have also used their hooters to their advantage to manipulate a male colleague.

Zuska: I did not say, nor do I believe, nor could any reasonably unbiased moderately thoughtful normally intelligent reader get from what I wrote, that "you can't fight it baby."

Your shoes are looking pretty crappy these days.

End. Of. Discussion.

Why is that surprising? Think about it. In a culture where the only real power women are allowed to have is sexual, why wouldn't a certain percentage of women go ahead and try to wield it? Even though that power is essentially illusory, because we don't really wield sexual power over men - men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault. Men made helpless by the flashing boobies obscures the real power dynamic in society and at the same time it reproduces that dynamic. It says: woman, you are a sexual creature, and man, you can't be expected to control yourself around those sexual creatures. Flash 'em and get what you want is the flip side of you got 'em so I have the right to grab 'em.

I seem to be hooked on the flip side thingie...

Again quoting Greg Laden:

No society ever produced a preponderance of not-bad men without trying very hard to do so, and that is still not working so well.

We have a word for poorly-supported pseudoscientific babble: "scientifical". Like, "George Bush is so scientifical in his denial of global warming, isn't he?"

because he thinks he's all cool with us ladies and our issues, without having ever bothered to examine some of the drivel that regularly comes out of his mouth. Sorry Greg, no free pass here.

Applause.

Zuska, why is that "you can't fight it" instead of "we've still got a lot of fighting left to do"?

IMHO, that's a really really charitable extrapolation.

Charitable? When looking at the words of an avowed political progressive and feminist who later in the same thread specifically decried the naturalistic fallacy? I realize that this is not a topic designed to elicit charity, but I don't think that takes much extrapolation. Even if it does take some, is there a good reason to be uncharitable?

I agree with Stephanie Z's take.

The statement read to me as "There's much to be done, and we haven't been trying hard enough."

The only reason that this exegesis of Laden's assertions even needs to occur is that he writes so abysmally incomprehensibly that there is no way to tell what the fuck he is talking about at any given moment.

Greg, your cause is not helped by effectively calling a bunch of people unreasonably biased, fairly thoughtless, and abnormally unintelligent. Because I read it the same way. So I guess I'm biased, thoughtless, and stupid. And unreasonable, immoderate and abnormal to boot. Perhaps, as PhysioProf suggests in his inimitable way, you should reread what you write with your best attempt to find ways it could be misread and then rewrite to avoid triggering this sort of response. Although calling people coming from a different perspective (ie, people who don't really know you and can only go by your literal words on the screen) all those epithets doesn't really suggest you care if you're misread.

men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.

Ah, the old "every man is a potential rapist" gambit.
Nice.

GregLaden: No society ever produced a preponderance of not-bad men without trying very hard to do so, and that is still not working so well.

actually, with respect to this particular statement of Greg's I tend to agree. I read it much as Stephanie Z did:

Zuska, why is that "you can't fight it" instead of "we've still got a lot of fighting left to do"?

I happen to think that yes, people are shits in their native state and it is by virtue of rule of laws and social controls that we manage to make anything of ourselves as a species. Are men particularly bad / worse than women? well, if we gate on inter-personal violence, um, yeah. Does this mean that women are all to the good? Hell no. Are our myriad systems of rules of law and social controls working to ensure optimal behavior? I would agree with Greg that humanity's track record is not so hot in that area.

men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.

Ah, the old "every man is a potential rapist" gambit.
Nice.

This is way off-topic, but I couldn't let it pass. Spoken like someone who never has to have that small niggling voice saying "yeah, I know we've been friends for years, but should I really stay overnight here?"

I know waaaaaay too many people who have been assaulted by "old friends (including family members!)" who were "nice guys" and "not the type" not to have that small worry myself. I've already learned the hard way about not trusting my dates too soon. And it sucks both for me and for the men I think it about. It is only a gambit if it isn't really true for many people.

Back to the original topic--great recap. While I am heartened that we've made lots of progress in a short time (blah, blah, blah) I worry that so many younger, more educated men seem to be stuck in unquestioning sexist attitudes. Everyone says "wait until the dinosaurs die off" but I see lots of folks ready and able to replace them, for all forms of discrimination.

No one WANTS to be considered prejudiced. It took me quite a lot of processing to understand that white privilege is about my position in society and not about me personally. Once I got there, I could start to examine the privileges I take for granted. It sure helped me understand the concept to be a woman and a religious minority. I want to think that many men are in the same position with regards to male privilege. I suspect many men who hit the privilege lottery in the US (white, male, heterosexual, Christian background, non-disabled) have more of a challenge ahead, precisely because it is SO HARD to see privilege you never live without and can't imagine not having.

men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.

Ah, the old "every man is a potential rapist" gambit.
Nice.

Yeah, that's not what that statement means and you know it. Or maybe you don't.

Women, with good reason, do live with the fear of rape. (Ironically, though we are taught to worry more about stranger rape, it's those close to us who are more likely to sexually assault us.) That fear constrains women's lives and choices. That gives ALL MEN, whether they want it or not, an advantage over women. It doesn't have to do with fearing that every man is a rapist. It has to do with living daily with the pervasive fear that you could be raped at anytime - and if you are, don't expect much sympathy or support from the judicial system.

There's another solid socially bad side to the 'Men are bad/lazy/etc. by nature' argument (which it sure looked like, to me, that Greg was reaching for, even if he might have been thinking more generally about people in general), and it is that the obvious implication is that any man who is better than bad is not just normal, or even good, they're amazing. They fought nature and the way that they were made to do such things as not (obviously) stare at women, or not hit people weaker than them, or take care of their kids in a way that doesn't involve playing sports, or whatever other garbage men are supposed to 'naturally' not want to do. Give that man a cookie, he did the dishes! Give that man a trophy, he gives a damn about his kids! Pfaugh. I expect that's where Zuska's going to be taking her later post, but it seems relevant to the people who don't seem to be getting it now. (And see the 'Men are slavering animals who, all things being equal, would rape a woman who isn't covered from head to toe' arguments that some people engage in on an extreme example of the 'men are bad' state, what it means, and where it tends to lead.)

The idea, ultimately, ends up not only being essentialist crap, but takes what should be considered societally normal functional decent behavior and turns it into exceptional behavior. Here is a perfect example of that entitlement, as expressed in modern pop culture (in the context of the original post, even!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9G8k3JUxQ .

So while Greg -might- not have meant anything bad about it, and might be trying for a more 'original sin' like approach where everyone is initially an awful person but for society (which is doing us few favors), I think it might be a good idea for people who are defensively protesting to, instead, think about what the espousing of that sentiment, in that way, means for people who aren't Greg. It's little more than an excuse for bad behavior, especially when used defensively and for men, as well as a way to make people accept normal behavior as exceptional, and it's far more scientifical than scientific.

-Mecha

men as a class wield sexual power over women as a class via the fear of sexual assault.

Ah, the old "every man is a potential rapist" gambit.
Nice.

Yeah, that's not what that statement means and you know it. Or maybe you don't.

I knew there was a reason I'd never read this blog. If the power wielded is via the fear of sexual assault, then it is useless without the assumption that every man is a potential rapist.

Women, with good reason, do live with the fear of rape. That fear constrains women's lives and choices. That gives ALL MEN, whether they want it or not, an advantage over women. It doesn't have to do with fearing that every man is a rapist. It has to do with living daily with the pervasive fear that you could be raped at anytime - and if you are, don't expect much sympathy or support from the judicial system.

Although I agree with the gist of your post (with the exception of how looking at someone is supposed to be some type of 'power' play on the part of the male; I must have missed the post where you demonstrated your telepathy), I thought this was just a little over the top. Not to downplay the risk or gravity of rape, but no, you have no reasonable reason to fear you could be raped 'anytime' or, depending on your habits, even most of the time; I doubt that you are really that frightened of being raped during the day at the mall, grocery store, gas station, classroom, or many other public places. Point taken on the inconsistent lack of recourse via the judicial system though.

Men are victims of homicide 2-3 times more often than women. That gives ALL WOMEN, whether they want it or not, an advantage over men; fair statement?

Ah, the old "every man is a potential rapist" gambit.
Nice.

Posted by: bj

huh, I just heard about another male friend who raped a female friend. I've had male friends confess rape to me as well, although they had reached the point of trying to make amends. I've had male friends stalk female friends.

The list goes on.

No only are we told constantly we're not safe, but it's our own fault if we do get raped, but the truth is men are predatory in our society, whether it is due to nurture OR nature.

Dismissing it as an argumentative gambit simply tells me you to have the potential to rape and harm women because you don't acutally see the real harm that goes on all around you. You Dismiss the person (female) making the argument as having any experience or understanding of these things.

It's offensive, misogynistic and childish.

Women are raped. More than is ever reported in the statistics. It is usually by someone they know. And too often they are considered the problem.

There are clearly destructive applications of the "men are bad by nature" line of reasoning... but there's another problem.
Classifying men into Good Male Oglers (ht to Samia for the terminology), who are presumably just being appreciative, OR Bad Men (possibly Potential Rapists) is inaccurate.
All men I know, even the most thoughtful and caring of them, are capable of misusing sexual power. Granted, such men are mortified when they accidently step over a line. They strive not abuse their power... and they generally succeed.

"No society ever produced a preponderance of good acts without trying very hard to do so, and that is still not working out so well" strikes me as a rather wise statement. But I'm not a huge fan of Original Sin type worldviews.

Dave L: Ogling someone, especially in groups, is a power play. It's 'look at me stare at you, what are you gonna do about it'? When challenged, the response is typically defensiveness and 'I'm doing nothing wrong, and what are you gonna do about it anyway, I outnumber/outmass/am taller than you.' The answer is most commonly 'Nothing', thanks to the threats and fear.

And trying to play oppression Olympics with rape of women vs murder of men is not only a losing proposition if you're in any way an ally, it misses the point. The fear of physical violence, harrassment, and rape due to _societal power inequity and sexism_, which is hammered into women quite frequently, is very different from, saying, 'But men do more dangerous work' or 'But men are murdered more' and then implying that evens it up because it sucks for everyone. Almost no woman can escape the power inequality here. Almost every woman that gets raped will have to deal with people examining 'was she too drunk, was she not wearing enough clothes, had she had sex before, then clearly the guy couldn't help it.' Many men are not actually subject to this higher risk of murder, or more dangerous work (although poorer ones may have less of a choice, we don't want to be classist there.)

Men do have their own societal issues and problems, but this is not the forum for them. There's multiple Patriarchy Hurts Men Too groups and forums out there.

-Mecha

Every man is a potential rapist, at least when seen from a woman's point of view. It's not like there's a good way to tell the rapists from the non-rapists; men don't wear signs, and if they did, who could trust the signs? The only difference between a rape situation and a non-rape situation is the presence or absence of a rapist, so that's what makes the discussion kind of hard to have, especially when men are so quick to avow that they would never do anything like that...but at the same time, non-rapist men aren't doing a whole lot to stop rapist men.

Hell, we're still talking about rape in the passive voice half the time, like rapists don't even exist. Even upthread we have it "Women are raped." Who's doing that raping? Most overwhelmingly, male rapists.

Men are victims of homicide 2-3 times more often than women. That gives ALL WOMEN, whether they want it or not, an advantage over men; fair statement?

Only if women are committing the murders. I don't think that's the case.

Becca, I like the rewording. I don't think of it as "original sin," though. I think of it as social behavior evolving to replace the instincts we gave up to become more flexible animals. The struggle is to figure out what that flexibility gave us and how much of it we want to/should give up for the good of the group as a whole.

Maybe I look and act exactly like a man, or I've simply been extremely lucky in my life, because I really don't at all relate to the various broad statements Zuska and others are making about how women are made to feel. Seriously. What's up with the rampant generalisations here? How is there to be a rational discussion if we can't even allow for the fact that many women don't live in constant fear of rape, many women don't feel ashamed because they're female, many women don't constantly experience disgusting ogling...

I do realise I've been treated differently from how I otherwise would have on occasion, but nothing like what's being said here. While I realise that some generalisations are necessary, please don't presume to speak for all of woman-kind when you go on about how oppressed you are. It drives those of us who don't have the same experience away.

(Or is it just the case that Sweden really does live up to its reputation, and all other women, everywhere else, live in constant fear? I sort of doubt it.)

@Felicia: this conversation is very heavily US-centric. The cultural, gender, power, and political issues are not unique to the US but most issues involving sex here are writ large and often (though not in the case of rape) blown all out of proportion to the risk. The US still lags the rest of the industrialized world by a few decades in attitudes on social issues. Acquaintance rape is a very real problem in the US and most likely vastly underreported.

While it would be perfectly accurate to say every *person* is a potential rapist, statistically speaking it is wildly more likely that a male will be the rapist than a female, regardless of the gender of the victim.

Dave L: Ogling someone, especially in groups, is a power play. It's 'look at me stare at you, what are you gonna do about it'? When challenged, the response is typically defensiveness and 'I'm doing nothing wrong, and what are you gonna do about it anyway, I outnumber/outmass/am taller than you.' The answer is most commonly 'Nothing', thanks to the threats and fear.

Mecha, that is exactly what I'm talking about; you scripted the entire thing, including everyone's thoughts and intentions, including threats and fears. The fact is that a man may be staring at/ogling a woman for lots of reasons that have zip to do with 'power'. If some creep ogles an attractive woman for the sole purposes of masturbation fodder, is that a 'power play'? And I'm sorry, but the response 'I'm doing nothing wrong' is absolutely correct; ultimately no one or group has to justify to anyone why they are looking at them, especially when that anyone is going to take it upon themselves to imagine the absolute worst about what that staring 'means'. Where one points their eyes and for how long harms no one. It may be creepy, perverted, and antisocial, but it's no more (perhaps less) harmful than words.

Mecha said:

The fear of physical violence, harrassment, and rape due to _societal power inequity and sexism_, which is hammered into women quite frequently, is very different from, saying, 'But men do more dangerous work' or 'But men are murdered more' and then implying that evens it up because it sucks for everyone.

and Joel:

Only if women are committing the murders. I don't think that's the case.

I admit I may be confused on the calculus of 'this gives ALL MEN, whether they want it or not, an advantage over women'. Men have an advantage over women because men are much more likely to rape women than women are, and therefore women are 'justified' in being fearful of all men? Men have an advantage because of the agreed difficulties of what women have to go through as far as the questioning of how 'responsible' the woman may be for the rape because of what they were wearing and the other things Mecha listed? I took the comment as 'men have an advantage over women because they don't have to worry about being raped', which is why I brought up murder; agreed the percentages are higher for the likelihood of rape, but in most cases, the repercussions to a homicide victim are obviously greater than most rape victims. I again I admit I might be missing some nuance here though, and was wondering exactly what this 'advantage' is that men have.

Speaking of not generalizing to all people..

I doubt that you are really that frightened of being raped during the day at the mall, grocery store, gas station, classroom, or many other public places.

I've been afraid of being raped walking from my classroom to my home. Gas station? Alone, at night, with a guy loitering by the next pump staring at me...?

Though if I were to be raped, it would probably be by my boyfriend or a close male friend. (Just sayin, statistically.)

Dave, I'm not sure if I have this right.

What I think they are saying is that because it is nearly impossible to tell which man will rape you, it is impossible to really let your guard down. Having to be guarded, fearful, and feeling vulnerable to attack would put you at a disadvantage.

Where one points their eyes and for how long harms no one. It may be creepy, perverted, and antisocial, but it's no more (perhaps less) harmful than words.

How easy it is for you to say that when you've never had to experience it. And for the record, the wrong words can become criminal...as in, creating a hostile environment. Words are not harmless. Nor is the message that my body is there to supply someone else's sexual satisfaction.

I'm so glad you started and continued this conversation, Z. Just a couple weeks ago at work, I met with a very nice guy who, for some reason, could not keep his eyes on my face instead of my chest. His manner and his ogling were so at odds, I couldn't figure it out. I wonder sometimes if men are even aware they're doing it, or that we notice, or that we're offended by it?

I subsequently discussed it with a number of male friends, all of whom agree that a) most heterosexual men can't help looking occasionally, but b) they sure as hell better not creep a woman out by looking, or they're total assholes. Just because touching isn't involved doesn't make it okay - if it did, we wouldn't prosecute hate speech.

If a guy doesn't know his leering will creep women out, he's an idiot. If he does know, and does it anyway, he either a) is an asshole, or b) has a serious problem with self control. Men with serious self control problems that are oriented on women's bodies SHOULD creep us ALL out. Can we agree on that?

And for those commenters who don't think women worry about rape in public places or broad daylight: once, in college, a guy I didn't know followed me from the dorm study room at lunch time, entered my room, blocked my door, grabbed me and kissed me. He had at least fifty pounds on me and was six inches taller. I was very, very afraid. And given that I had to live down the hall from the guy for three months afterward, and go past the study room to the showers to bathe, I continued to be afraid every day for that entire summer.

Most women I know have a story like this. But I don't think most men can relate, because they've never had to feel that way. They're lucky.

Let's replace some of the statements with the word 'penis' and see how the men react.

"So, to recap:

A couple of men are having a conversation, and the topic turns to penis-ogling. "No one should be staring at my penis in the workplace," they all agree. "That makes me uncomfortable, creates a hostile work environment, and constitutes sexual harassment! How difficult is it to look at my eyes? Staring and ogling is a threatening display of power enacted in a sexual manner. This isn't the Mad Women era. Haven't women figured out how to behave in a professional situation by now?"

A woman at the table next to them has been listening in and feels compelled to pipe up:

"Boyz, boyz, boyz! What's all this fuss about sexual harassment?
How can we not look at your hawt frat-boy behinds when you are jogging?
Women are biologically hardwired to look at the cocks!
It's part of mating behavior!
It's nature, baby - you can't fight it!
Why do you men stuff your pants and dress all hawt if you don't want us to look?
Women can't control themselves!
Evolution makes women constantly scan the horizon for lovable penises!
Why do you hate sex?
It's not sexual harassment unless she gets physical with him!
Looking at penises is not sexual harassment!
Dress modestly if you don't want to be stared at!
It's your own fault!
Why can't you boyz think scientifically about why womenz look at teh testicles? That is the REAL question here!
Because if it isn't SCIENTIFIC!!!!11!!1!**** it isn't knowledge - it's ideological!""

marsha said:

huh, I just heard about another male friend who raped a female friend. I've had male friends confess rape to me as well, although they had reached the point of trying to make amends. I've had male friends stalk female friends.

You need better friends or higher standards for friendship. Just sayin'.

Greg is making an evo-psych argument that men are inherently bad by their biological nature. He says society can try to fight it but that that doesn't work very well either. If that ain't "it's nature baby", then tell me what is.

I haven't read Greg's argument on this specific case, but my impression so far has been that "people, especially men, seem to have an instinctive drive to look at attractive stimuli, which can be amplified or dampened by social power structures and customs, and we need to be doing more of the latter rather than the former" is consistent with what I've observed of him - and conflating that with "it's nature, baby, you can't fight it!" is consistent with my previous observations about the discussion here.

The only reason that this exegesis of Laden's assertions even needs to occur is that he writes so abysmally incomprehensibly that there is no way to tell what the fuck he is talking about at any given moment.

Aren't you a little old to be trying to score points like that?

Men do have their own societal issues and problems, but this is not the forum for them. There's multiple Patriarchy Hurts Men Too groups and forums out there.

Err, why not?

Aren't you a little old to be trying to score points like that?

I'm not trying to score points. I'm pointing out an indisputible fact.

Laden is constantly having to explain that he didn't mean what people thought he meant. This happens over and over and over in various contexts, and many different people seem to "misunderstand" or "misrepresent" Laden's assertions. The reason for this is that he is a shitty writer, who cannot construct a sentence in the English language that means what he later claims he intended it to mean.

Err, why not?

Because this is Zuska's fucking blog, and it exists to serve her purposes, not yours. And her purpose is clearly stated in her "About" page as follows:

This blog exists to complain loudly about the hideous conditions women in science and engineering must routinely deal with.

You got any other stupid questions, dipshit?

Zuska,

I hope you will see my comments on this at the post below.

Isis

http://isisthescientist.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter_10.html

PP, if you keep having to argue the same point with "many different people," it's hardly indisputable. Dead on about a person's blog existing to serve their own purposes, though.

One more thing on the women good/men bad construction: the next step in reasoning for many people is "it's a woman's job to civilize her man". This provides a basis for denying women's sexual impulses. It's also one of the reasons women were kept out of the public sphere - the Romantic/Victorian notion that women were "too fine" for the real world and our job was to provide spiritual upliftment to men and children.

Dave L: If someone were to, hypothetically, punch you in the face, I could ascribe myriad reasons to why they did it. Maybe it's because I was defending myself, maybe it's because I don't like your face. But you cannot say that it is not, to some degree, about power. If you had 'equal' power, you could stop me, or punch me back. If you did not, you would not. It is inherently a struggle of power, the victor defined by who is most powerful.

Typically, looking at breasts/women in an obviously sexual manner is in the same box: The few people who do it innocently or for a justified reason are largely outweighed by people who don't. And women can't 'ogle' back, or in any significant way hit back, or stop people from ogling them. It is inherently based on a power differential: If women were 'more powerful' than men, do you think that guys would be staring at women nakedly, catcalling, etc, all this 'it's natural is a first level defense' bullshit aside? I think it becomes clear that it would rarely happen. And men pretty much always win that power struggle. They get to leer, or catcall, or do whatever the fuck they want, and it's always the women who are overreacting. See the discussion, in fact, that has happened on this blog.

Furthermore, any action which can be considered communication has two sides: the message you intend, and the message received. It is a negotiated medium in EVERY case, where men, due to the societal norms, hold the larger share of the power. This means that men in general can 'define' ogling as 'okay' 'normal' 'natural', and women, such as the ones around a table in the post, might try to discuss how they don't like it, but then men/society come down and say all the things Zuska pointed out. So where's the women's power to define it? In an equal world, the _meaning_ of leering would not be 'What I say goes', women would have a say, right? And it would be respected, right? Yeah. This is tied to the concept of 'male gaze', which I'd recommend you look up.

As to your second part, you seem honest, so I'm going to point you at the concept of privilege. Specifically, male privilege. Being a guy gives us all sorts of minor advantages that we never have to really consider. ( http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ ). While many men may not get all of these privileges at full level (especially if they are gay/feminine/trans/people of color/etc.) pretty much every guy gets 'em implicitly. There are some disadvantages to being male, but they just do not overwhelm these big and small advantages. And sexual power is one of the biggest areas where men have the upper hand. (Relevant male/female stereotypes: He's a stud, she's a slut. If a woman is showing some skin, she's available to any guy, and can in no way be doing it for herself. Guys can't help but look, grope, and sleep around, it's their nature.) It doesn't make isolated men evil or bad, but it helps create an atmosphere of inequality which society supports, many men simply don't have to think about, and is incredibly pervasive.

-Mecha

Over the last weekend, my still pregnant (but now mother of a 2nd kid) sister-in-law was talking about how her husband (my brother) was getting a LOT of looks by the students and even the parents at the gym they work at. All because he started getting back into shape.

I was laughing at tears listening to this. Women are such pigs.

PP, if you keep having to argue the same point with "many different people," it's hardly indisputable.

WTF are you talking about? It's Laden who keeps having to argue that he is being "misunderstood" and "misrepresented" by many different people. What's indisputible is that this is what occurs. And, as I have already stated, the best inference from this is that Laden writes like shit, and that is why many different people have no fucking clue what he is trying to say, and, thus, why he always seems to be "misunderstood" and "misrepresented".

And yet, you're doing most of the commenting, PP. Are you arguing with yourself?

Pysio: no, what's indisputable is that Laden is being misrepresented by some seriously deluded, controlling and manipulative social violence in a very small shit-stirring navel over here at Zuska's and over at your blog, etc.

More importantly, his field necessitates that he be more objective (less feministically cauterized) in his observations of both 1) sexual violence 2)human/chimp/bonobo behavior 3)politicized conversations that occur in linty little navels of 'misunderstanding'like, um, two or three highly inflammatory and opinionated lil' sciblogs that use orchestrated controversy and shit slinging to get even one or two hits on their lil' counter.

BTW: many ethnographiers can demonstrate that this world of sexual violence possible stems from controlling women who 1) fondle 2) caress 3) digitally manipulate 4) masturbate 5)laugh at 6)bite (in the case of Elian Gonzalez and his grandmother--when he was returned to Cuba--and many other such behaviors which create a strange cultrual dynamic that has led some to assert a "defense of cultural practice" and others to minimize as "random observations.

In the case of Elian Gonzalez and his granny feeling that she has an a priori 'right' to the boys penis, it is possible to extrapolate many conclusions about the well known Cuban machisimo, and sexual violence as well, but that is another conversation--one best left alone when talking to militant bonobos...

OOOPs...pp 3 should end "6)bite the penises(in the case of Elian Gonzalez and his grandmother--when he was returned to Cuba--and many other such behaviors which create a strange cultrual dynamic that has led some to assert a "defense of cultural practice" and others to minimize as "random observations)of little boys.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zyWr3dSXUrIC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=Eli…

http://www.thecolumnists.com/littlefield/kinney1.html

his field

His field!?!? He's a low level administrator at a backwoods college. What fucking "field" are you talking about?

PP, if you want to talk about what supporting a spouse's career and being primary caretaker to a young child can do to one's career, we can certainly pimp Greg's femcred a bit. But suggesting that the U of M Twin Cities is a backwoods college is a bit rich.

Throw out 5,000 of social wisdom & custom and people start acting like jerks. Dangerous jerks.

Funny how that works.

You had me at "Staring and ogling is a threatening display of power enacted in a sexual manner".

That, ma'am is Horseshit. Staring and ogling is something that for many guys takes a conscious effort not to do when confronted with a nice pair o' titties (or whatever other Sexy Hawt Body Bits a fellow might be drawn to). Appreciate those of us who make that effort, and castigate, if you must, those who don't, but don't think for a minute that such lack of control constitutes a "display of power". Just the opposite, really.

Full disclosure: Yeah, I ended up on this page because I saw "Women and Their Sexy Hawt Bodies" on the ScienceBlogs front page and just had to click the link...

Hrrm, I remember listening to a bit on This American Life about a female-to-male transgender person. He talked about how the boost in testosterone turned him into a complete horndog. Women don't believe him when he explains it, but he says he turned into a freaking beast.

Anecdotal, I know, I'm not making a point, I just thought it was interesting from the bio perspective.

I refuse to let this discussion affect the way I look at people, though this has nothing to do with obstinacy on my part. I actually have a lazy eye, and the direct effect of that is to impair my ability to meet people's gaze.

It has also made me deathly afraid to look anywhere within the general vicinity of women I don't know well. I've become very fairly good at carrying on conversations without looking at people for extended periods of time. Believe me it's hard.

Trust me, where you gaze is very cultural, and you can help it if the response is negative enough. I know this from experience.

Katharine:

A couple of men are having a conversation, and the topic turns to penis-ogling. ...

I don't think your exchange of roles in the narrative is effective, as it fails to reverse the power dynamic between the groups. I suspect that (most?) men would not mind (and may even welcome) being ogled by women since it would constitute positive feedback as to their attractiveness and they don't feel the same fear of potential sexual assault from someone who appears at first glance, to be physically weaker. The analogy might be more effective if the role of oglers was played by a group of well built gay men instead of women.

Well...that would sorta work...except that gay men, as a group, don't actually have a lot of power over straight men as a group. What you are talking about is playing on straight men's homophobia, which is different than fear for one's physical safety. In the homophobia case, the straight men, or at least some percentage of them, would be incited to some form of gay bashing that might even include physical violence. So the potential outcome isn't even the same. In terms of creating uncomfortable sensations...maybe there's an equivalence there. I just wanted to point out that the power differential does not translate in that example, either.

Was at a conference. There's a few women there, not presenters, but claiming to represent women like myself.

They are loud. Confident, handing out flyers for their group. A group that claims to promote gender equality, with the sexy equals smart attitude. Some dress revealingly, but not as much as others at other presentations at the conference, admittedly. But they make a point of stockings, heels, a particular form of dress.

One of the presenters openly films one of these women, walking from behind, wearing her FM boots - I was sneered at for (not that I said a thing, but it was thrown at me) supposedly thinking that this was 'sexist' behaviour. Sure, these women are not presenters. But they run the 'side-show' somewhat, hosting parties and being a social crowd.

I notice later that a few males then make panting noises during presentations, claiming that the voices of the females who are _presenters_ turn them on - rather than paying attention to what they say. Some female presenters play along, some pause - and then get back to the topic at hand. But it's still distracting, although one apologises later to a 'pauser'.

By the end of the conference, the one group who did dress up, who did make an overt link to their sex appeal as being a prime part of their identity - are singled out and praised as being 'typical' of the women they want to attract to future conferences. Not education. Not parenting. But just that these women were what they wanted - none of whom presented nor wrote later of what issues were raised by the conference. This was all 'just fun'. They plan to do it again.

I later find one of these women runs a forum where explicit content was only recently locked down, after running riot with images and details that you would expect. Thinking that one rape reference made it beyond the pale, it is temporarily in hiatus. Not appreciated by the main population, of course.

Sure, I felt that important issues were marginalised in favour of this behaviour at some points. That people were missing the point somewhat and that now a 'standard' of behaviour is being set or being started by a minority at this conference, that will certainly have more implications than what was said and done. Perhaps it's a 'no true scotsman' attitude in parts... but I don't know why these women are setting up more than themselves to be make more than themselves up for a potential 'fall'.

Maybe this is off-topic. But the weight of the clique is such that I know you can't talk about it openly without being seen as 'anti-women'. It depresses me that I only feel I can write about it here and that our own 'icons', male and female, are implicitly and even explicitly supporting it.

The problem isn't that all men are potential rapists, the problem is that some women cannot tell which men are potential rapists and which men are not potential rapists until it is too late. The "evolved reason" for that is that women who could tell who might rape them avoided that man and so didn't get raped by him, and so didn't bear his child carrying his genes for propensity to rape, his genes for being sneaky about it, and her genes for being oblivious to him being a potential rapist.

This is why the ability of raped women to abort a pregnancy due to rape is such an important right. It is the only way to eventually purge from the gene pool, those genes for men who rape and are sneaky enough about it that women don't avoid them. I am not saying that raped women should be forced to abort a pregnancy of rape, but it should be their absolute option to do so.

There really are some men who would never rape a woman under any circumstances. Some women can tell that, some women can't.

It is unacceptable that some men are rapists. It is unfortunate that some women are unable to tell which men are and which men are not, and it is unfortunate that they then throw up their hands and say (in effect), "no one could have predicted" that male XYZ was a potential rapist, and that "all males are potential rapists".

That is a logical fallacy of the same type as saying "because some women like their boobies being looked at then all women like their boobies being looked at".

It is the Patriarchy that supports the idea that all men are potential rapists. That gives the potential rapists cover, and makes it harder for women to select out the potential rapists and select in the men who would never rape a woman under any circumstance.

male XYZ was a potential rapist

OMG, is "Z" the rape chromosome? Stockholm, here comes daedalus2u!

no DM, there is no "rape chromosome", or even a "rape gene". A propensity to rape is obviously supported by the nervous system of some men (and some women too), which originates during development from genetic and environmental factors. If a propensity to rape did increase reproductive success, even by a small amount, then over evolutionary time it would become universal. If there was a heritable genetic component that increased reproductive success by even 1%, over 10,000 generations it becomes universal in the population. (1.01^10,000 = 10^43)

The selective breeding of dogs has shown that quite complex and characteristic behaviors can be bred into mammals in very short time frames. It would be unreasonable to suppose that propensity for a behavior as directly connected to sex and reproduction as rape would not have a genetic component.

All humans are descended from ancestors who were conceived via rape. That is all humans male and female. What ever genetic propensity there is for rape, began in deep evolutionary time, from tens of millions of years ago. It is a very complex behavior, obviously any genetic components that support the formation of neural systems that support such complex behavior are extremely complex too.

The most sure way to eventually have rape never happen, is for the propensity for rape to be purged from the gene pool. That is going to take a long time. The only way that can happen is for women to be careful in who they choose to be the father of their children. Children tend to be attracted to mates who are like their opposite gender parent. If a woman wants her daughter to be attracted to a certain type of man, that is the type of man she should choose as her daughters father. She should choose wisely.

Ooh, the choosey wimminz just-so story! I luv it!

umm, that was a leeeeetle joke about the XY chromosome thing...geddit? no? i gotta get some better material...

Jokes about rape are only funny for people who think rape is funny. Same about jokes about causes of rape, be that sexy hawt bodies, heredity, environment or music lyrics. Once there is no more rape, and no more victims of rape then maybe jokes about rape wont be unacceptable. That wont happen in my lifetime, or in the lifetime of any victim of rape.

Um, d00d, that was not a joke about rape.

Same about jokes about causes of rape, be that sexy hawt bodies, heredity, environment or music lyrics.

OMG you TOTALLY nailed Zuska! I mean, that 'sexy hawt bodies' post was clearly intended to be funny so there musta been a joke in there somewhere. and I am almost positive that she's made a joke or six about men before. Men are a proximal cause of rape so....

oh jebus.

Zuska, I don't know you anymore and I totally couldn't attend your rocking millionth comment eve. I might laugh at something you say, you know...

Interesting comments and original read - Zuska, do you have a comment about the following article just released?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1562379/foolishly_seeking_gender_e…
I'll be blogging it on Podblack.com, myself.

... and yes, I'm aware that it's a reprint of 'Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man' by Christina Hoff Sommers... was originally in American.com. Didn't get enough attention, perhaps?

...the obvious implication is that any man who is better than bad is not just normal, or even good, they're amazing. They fought nature and the way that they were made to do such things as not (obviously) stare at women, or not hit people weaker than them, or take care of their kids in a way that doesn't involve playing sports, or whatever other garbage men are supposed to 'naturally' not want to do. Give that man a cookie, he did the dishes! Give that man a trophy, he gives a damn about his kids! Pfaugh.

Exactly.

Oh that pesky Christina Hoff Sommers, she just will not go away. I am going to have to write something about her eventually. Been putting it off for months now.

Long ago when my Best Beloved (someday to be my husband) and I were undergraduates, he confided that he'd had a terrible time working with a particular female colleague. They were both student employees at one of the campus labs that required grunt work so pedestrian that it was even considered beneath the duties of those ever-present slaves known as graduate students. BB is acutely aware and admiring of females who are especially well-endowed in the, er, chest. BB was still enduring late-adolescent hormonal gremlins, and found that concentrating on his work in the presence of a well-stacked female was completely impossible.

But he took great pride in never, ever, admitting, by lack of eye contact or other cue, his obsession. He was enough of a feminist to understand how unacceptable that was.

He also chose me, a classic B-cup, as his bride.

Today we celebrated BB's 50th birthday. He's still entranced by the presence of well-stacked women. He's still proud of his ability to not show it.

He still comes home to me at night.

This is obviously a hot topic and will probably always be such. As a lesbian I notice breasts and yes, i think there is and is not an acceptable amount of cleavage. I look at a persons eyes, man or woman, not because it is respectful but because it's the person I'm interested in not, predominately, their bodies.

Out culture encourages men to look at women as objects rather than people, it also encourages men to look at men as Men not people. This is a serious issue that permeates all societies and it is a concept that needs to be addressed and evolved.

But when I'm put face to face with a woman who has her boobs out almost to the nipples and is using and gesturing in a manner where her sexuality is being used to manipulate people I get pissed off and yes, i think she is asking for something. No, she's definitely not asking for oogling or abuse but she is deliberately putting people in an uncomfortable and awkward position and no, it's not acceptable in a professional environment.

And on a side note, I find men to be more uncomfortable with the idea of sexuality than women and socially conditioned that way as well.

"And on a side note, I find men to be more uncomfortable with the idea of sexuality than women and socially conditioned that way as well."

Well, yes, which is part of why any argument that boils down to "but you just don't understand how horny we guys can get!" is pretty much shit.

Having spent much of what should have been our sexual awakening learning to pretend that our sexuality only consists of pleasing others, never of finding others pleasing, is it any wonder that women tend to scoff at the idea that men can't control something as simple as where they look and how obviously they look?

To all the dudez who say "but you are trying to make me feel ashamed of my sexuality!" when women have conversations like this, I say:
Try being a (hetero) teen girl whose is not only too scared to admit to anyone that she has discovered male bodies (because she knows that good girls don't), but also has to subsist on Bop magazine rather than being able to find her mother's copy of a decent mass marketed porn mag for (hetero) women - because one doesn't even exist.

You complaining about not being able to openly "appreciate" the bodies of the women you work with is so chock full of ignorance and selfishness that I don't even know where to begin.

@daedalus #68:
All humans are descended from ancestors who were conceived via rape.

Uh. WTF??

Daedalus, have you ever, I mean ever looked at primate ethology?

Rape is known amongst chimps. Goodall wrote about it. She estimated that "forced copulation" where the female appeared unwilling accounted for about 3% of sexual encounters, if I am recalling correctly. I believe that other primate ethologists back that number up.

The only primate with a higher "rape" incidence is orangs, where forced copulation may account for between 30-50% of sexual encounters, depending on where and who you talk to.

In general, mammalian ethology would support the assertion that primates in general have a far higher rate of forced copulations than just about any other furry critter on the planet. Females can and do drive off males when they are unwilling.

Your assertion that we are the products of millions of years of rape...first thing is, if you are drawing info from Randy Thornhill, you have to understand that the man is about as dishonest as Monckton on global warming or a creationist on evolution. I've caught him asserting (with great confidence) flatly wrong info a number of times in the past, knowing that it is wrong. He keeps writing the same old BS anyway. Second, do you actually have ANY physical evidence to back up your assertion? Any?

Look, in general I like you, but please don't repeat stupid shit.

Sorry, meant to add, that although orang-utans have a very high incidence of rape, the number of pregnancies resulting from those encounters appears to be very low. This has led a number of the ethologists studying them to hypothesise that, rather than being reproductive, the rape functions as a dominance-assertion device for orang males. But given that most reproductive sex in orangs is initiated by the female with a male of her choosing, even there, the primate with the highest incidence of rape in the world, you can't claim that "their ancestors were conceived from rape."

Did not mean to leave that important tidbit of information out.

@Mickle: Omg. Your comment was so awesome.