I apologize for misunderstanding. Now that I do, I have to say - I still disagree. You are given women far too much credit, and placing an agency on them over which they have no control. Your argument that women, in choosing their sexual partner, does not feel empowered in "raising" his social status, so to speak. His social status, based on his sexual partners, is entirely determined by men - MEN deem whether or not his partner is an acceptable one to sleep with. Men rate the women they sleep with as being acceptable or not. Really, that power does not lie with the woman's sexuality. A woman whom a man wants to sleep with has *temporary* power over that individual, but not in a way that gives her real agency - after all, if him sleeping with her will give him social status by making him look cool, he has the most to lose, but he's also the only one to really gain anything. And that's not real empowerment for women - only some women will have that opportunity, but again, that isn't her power.
In a sense, your argument almost works, if the man achieves his status through others - but the 'others' aren't women. They are other men.
Well, I was speaking primarily to the status that is determined by sexual activity. If you want to talk about status determined by activities outside of sexuality and status determined by attractiveness, well, that's a tangent to a tangent. There are plenty of things over which men have no control that determine their attractiveness to women. For example, I will never be a basketball star. Plenty strong, plenty fast. Too damn short. But that's completely impertinent to the conversation at hand. If you want to talk about the various physical and behavioral characteristics (outside of sexual activity) that determine attractiveness, that's a discussion all it's own. Let's stick to the subject, rather than bringing up random complaints which have nothing to do with the discussion in order to minimize the other's argument.
The status that is determined by sexual activity has already been stated by you, when you said that society values "virginal" women and punishes "women who enjoy sex" (not how I would characterize the situation, btw). Women who choose limited sexual partners are "good", and women who are indiscriminate are "bad", by your definition. Or as I said, society values selective women. So when speaking about this aspect of status, women start out with a 100, and their indiscriminate activity decreases their score. Women are given multiple options, and accepting too often is a "mark against them" until they get down to a score of 0.
Men, on the other hand, may be given "agency" (you like that word, a lot... I'd be interested to know what you think it means), but they're not really given a choice of partner. In most cases, men have to learn early to deal with rejection or forever become a wall flower. They make their "sales pitch", and the number of women who "buy" is what determines their status, at least early in life. In other words, men start out with a 0 in this aspect of their status, and the number of women who accept them increases their score, to a possible score of 100.
So, women get to name their own "score", at least in this column of their overall "status score". Then, they get to decide whether or not to give "points" to men. I suppose you could say again, "What do they get out of it?" But the fact that you don't feel you "get anything about of" your own sexual relationships is an issue I can't help you with. That's a
you problem.
This is definitely a double standard. But you're complaining about a double standard where your gender starts out with a score of 100 and people are asking to knock you down, but you have the option to say no. I'm speaking from the perspective of a person who starts out at zero, where you have to ask for points, and the people who grant points are actively encouraged to say no to you. I still got women to say yes (and kept my mouth shut about it.. but people guessed I did okay judging from my behavior), but I've never bought into the idea that this dynamic is inherently anti-female. The only women I've
really seen punished under this system were the ones who actively sought out to connive against their friends, or the ones who passed on sexually transmitted diseases. Other than that, it's mostly a self-regulatory system imposed primarily by
women. Men may call women sluts, but without support no one cares. The only time it took hold was when a popular
girl decided to label somebody. This has just been my observation. The ones who didn't engage in this activity might get called names, but so? Men and women both get called all sorts of names. Only weak people cry about being called names.
Maybe I'm naive, oblivious, or didn't observe the precise situations that would've caused outrage, but I kind of hope there's someone out there to say, "Maybe you shouldn't have sex with that guy" to my daughter.
zeldagirl said:
(Also, I maintain you misjudge women's power over their own sexual choices - there is not as much control as you would claim there is.)There is not as much lack of control as you would claim there is.
zeldagirl said:
PhiMed said:
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".
I truthfully would really love to understand why this is dated - all those examples you mentioned are things I see glorified on a day to day basis. I seriously interact with people like this every. Single. Day.One. Single. Example.
zeldagirl said:
As for Barney, he's a mixture of buffoon and extremely likeable character. But someone like, say, Charlie Sheen and the entire premise of Two-and-a-half men DOES follow the formula of someone who boozes and sleeps around. And it (was) the most popular show on TV, and not because people thought it was a satire...
The fact that you liked Barney is because you have gotten to know Barney over time. He is well-written as a non-monster, and people can still be likable even if they disagree with you. (I find it interesting that you feel that "buffoon" and "likable" are mutually exclusive. That's probably an entire different conversation.)
Joey Tribiani on "Friends", Oslo on "The Drew Carey Show", David Duchovney's character on "Californication", and Sheen's character on "Two and a Half Men" (His brother, the "loser", is portrayed in a much more favorable light) are further examples of the modern age Lothario as either unlikable or stupid. The last real "likable, smart, ladies' man" on television was Sam Malone on "Cheers". That series started 30 years ago, and has been off the air for almost 20 years. In a world where women didn't have the right to vote until 93 years ago, that's ancient history. If you believe (as I do) that television characters not only mirror societal sensibilities, but actually lag behind, that means society hasn't considered "ladies' men" to be cool or smart for
at least two decades. That's what I meant by "dated". I've seen people with mullets in the past week. That doesn't mean society considers them cool. So, just because you've seen an asshole recently, that doesn't mean everyone suddenly thinks it's cool to be an asshole.
zeldagirl said:
PhiMed said:
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.
You're projecting a lot here. Mainly because it's impossible to make a blanket feminist argument on topics such as child custody rights because those are something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Again, I'm sorry that you perceive feminists as not standing up for double standards that may affect men instead of women, but I know that for many of us, that is not the case. Many acknowledge that sexism against females HURTS MEN TOO. I totally buy into your assertiveness agreement above - men have unfair double standards placed upon them too. But you shouldn't fight WOMEN on those topics - ultimately, that's born out of sexism, and as I've harped already in this topic, I am more than willing to work with male allies to make gender relations better for everyone. I'm sorry, but you seem to hell-bent on representing feminists as out for themselves - while it may be true for the vocal minority, it's not true for the majority of us that work actively for equitable treatment for all.
I know I accused you of projecting, but I'd like to know how you think I'm projecting. The movement is named "feminism". This
literally means advocacy for women. That's not projection. That's definition.
If there was another goal besides advocacy for women, perhaps "feminism" isn't the best label for the movement. You seem to enjoy being a mouthpiece for the movement. Pick a new label, and roll with it, if you feel it's appropriate. Also, find examples of prominent writers who demonstrate the ideas you feel demonstrate this goal of equality. Right now (and for the past several decades) feminism's vocal members advocate for females exclusively (as I said... that's okay).
Don't just say that the "vocal minority" of a movement believe something. If you want to prove that perception wrong,
prove it wrong Just saying it without support is like saying that the "vocal minority" of Christians believe Christ was divine. It's true, but most people would agree it's also true for the majority, as well.
). That being said, please, don't dismiss other individuals' experiences - you can't "take away" from someone's rape experience. Some people will react differently to different situations. And that's fine. You don't consider what happened to you rape - that's okay. That's your experience to define, and I fully support anyone defining that experience for them (as long as they don't feel pressured to call it something they don't want to). But if someone really feels that something is wrong, or they feel violated, or feel that something is off about that experience and that experience technically DOES qualify as rape, I'm also going to support that person, too. One person's experience with rape does not detract from another's or make that person's "less." There is a spectrum of sexual assault, and all of it is allowed to exist - it isn't black and white, and it doesn't have to detract from anyone else's experiences.
