I did not mean to imply it denotes a position of weakness. I think you're putting too much stock into the notion that women increase a man's social status, and that's how she is powerful. It seems that in that situation, a situation in which a man's social status is improved because of the woman he sleeps with, that's one sided. There is no talk of the benefit to her. So is it truly her own power then, as you say it is? In some cases, yes, it might be. But my point was to mention that there is a greater context in that scenario you've presented, and the idea that women use sexuality to affect the status of men is not always an empowering one for women.
You're slightly mis-stating my point. A woman achieves her own status via her sexuality through good judgement and restraint. In other words, predominantly through her own actions. A man achieves status via his sexuality entirely via the choice of others. Namely, women. Thus the power to grant and achieve status through sexuality for
both genders lies in the hands of women. Male virgins of a certain age receive just as much ridicule, if not more, than "sluts". Because after all, what sort of man reaches (insert age here) without getting
at least one woman to agree to sleep with him?
Also, I've seen intelligent, confident women defuse the situation you brought up earlier (where the man falsely claims he slept with the woman) on multiple occasions. Publicly, the woman gets the man to repeat the claim. Then she just says the following, "Well, I thought about it, but as soon as I saw (insert way to say 'your dick is small'), I decided against it." I've never seen this tactic fail. Again, the woman is judged by her choice, whereas the man is judged for something completely out of his control (anatomic proportion).
zeldagirl said:
You're right - equal is not the right word. Equitable is better. Though, I must say, I don't know where you are going with the 'feminine' and 'masculine' argument in this context. My original goal was to point out that, when dealing with sexual relationships, each gender should be regarded in a manner that is fair and equitable. It won't be *equal*, because of inherent differences. But under the principle of treating men and women as sexual beings in an equitable manner, women should be not labeled 'sluts' for having lots of sex, nor should they be warned 'well, you should have been more careful about who you had sex with' or any other comment that a man would not, under ordinary and common circumstances, receive. Men and women essentially should be treated the same if they are going to choose to be sexual beings - one should not be lauded while the other is shamed. That is what I mean by equitable (formerly equal). The reactions to the notion that people should be equitable, not discriminatory, as it stands now.
Your notion of men being hoisted upon the shoulders of society for multiple sexual conquests is a bit dated. Similar to the way that drunks used to be perceived as humorous, but are now considered sad, "man whores" are no longer looked upon as venerable, but as humorous charicatures. Please see Barney from "How I Met Your Mother". The portrayal of the "ladies man" as a buffoon is a regular occurrence now, and stands in starks contrast to the relatively aloof sophistication of Samantha from "Sex in the City".
Additionally, men are regularly told that they should have been more careful about with whom they had sex. It happens
all the time. A man who chooses to have sex with a crazy woman is just as likely to hear "I told you so" as a woman who has sex with a chauvinistic male. Men are just more likely to accept the criticism and say, "Yeah, you're right. I should've known better," rather than turn the focus on society for the repercussions their own choices. Again, I'm talking about consensual sex here.
zeldagirl said:
Where am I arguing for the eradication of the feminine? (Unless that 'you' was meant to be a general 'you').It was.
zeldagirl said:
We aren't arguing for the eradication of the feminine, rather, a renewal of respect for the feminine. You used examples earlier that demonstrated the point (the one about a man being ridiculed if he's yelled by a woman in public was a good one)
You keep returning to that. I only used that example because in heterosexual relationships, women making a scene by yelling at her significant other in public is embarrassing for the man and often considered humorous by observers, whereas the opposite situation is pretty much universally viewed as abuse. This is not a "check mark" in the "awesome to be a dude" column. Pretty much any time a man is verbally "dressed down", it is a source of shame, whether the source of the tirade is male or female. The same situation, when a woman is the person being berated, results in sympathy. This is not equitable. It's not a statement of "men strong, woman weak, feminine bad". It's a situation of men being held to a higher standard of assertiveness by society. Not everyone is naturally assertive. I've seen very smart, capable men fall behind at work because they aren't able to keep up to society's expectations of assertiveness.
Before you argue that women are not allowed to be assertive at all, let me stop you. They are. Women are not allowed to be aggressive and abusive. If they engage in behavior that would get them an "asshole" label if they had testes, then they will probably get the gender-specific label of "*****". But that's just a gender-specific label for the same unacceptable behavior. The problem is that both assertiveness and meekness are valued in women, whereas meekness is viewed as a negative characteristic in men.
zeldagirl said:
about how particular men (not all) view femininity as bad, or less-than masculinity. Many, many women perceive masculinity as bad. You're not going to completely eliminate sexists from society. Ever.
zeldagirl said:
Feminists goals are to reverse that, and give it the same value as the masculine. If your perception is that feminists don't want anything to do with femininity, well, maybe that's true for some, but that's not the general case. I'm sorry if you've been left with that perception.
I've never seen a feminist argument against double standards that are inarguably beneficial to women. Child custody rights, rights to alimony, maternity vs paternity leave (there are others, but these come immediately to mind): These are rarely, if ever, brought to the fore by those who claim to be feminists.
I understand that human nature is inherently selfish, but the name gives it away.
Feminism. Arguing against the double standards that stand in women's way while remaining silent about the double standards that are to women's benefit is not a fight for equitable treatment. It's just a fight for women. That's okay, but don't try to turn the movement into something that it's not.
