(no subject)

[lady_kishiria]

I have an associate in Montreal who is 50 and has some very antiquated ideas about gender relations. Her comments recently so horrified me that I'm asking everybody here for input, then I'll send her the link to this. This started from a conversation about the Pill, where she flabbergasted me by saying that the Pill was practically a sign to men that a woman was sexually available.

I KNOW this is a hot button, but PLEASE try to be informative, not abusive. I'm trying to educate here!

Steve, I know you'll probably object to me posting this, but I really found it intensely upsetting, and I'm still upset because I love men and don't like hearing them badmouthed, nor autonomous women belittled.


(Me)
Plus (and I'm moving away from Catholic teaching here) assume you have
a woman who isn't Catholic and likes sex. I object to the idea that a
woman who has sex because she enjoys it is "a victim of men".

(Her)
But she is!!! However free and independant and self-assured women become, they will always be looked upon by men as sexual prey....I know. I secretly watch men on the bus looking at women...I can almost read their minds- their expressions are so transparent! This is a fact of nature, and will never change.

The Italians are very aware of this - it is with pride that men refer to themselves and other men as " Cacciatori ". And women are something to be "conquistate ". You see it does not matter what WOMEN think. A woman can freely have sex and consider herself equal, while men while avail themselves of her "independence" and still regard her as something to be conquered.

(Me)
Things have moved on since the 1970s, and your statements are based on speculation, not fact. You say you "know" men see women as sexual prey, but you DON'T KNOW ANY MEN. This is predjudice. You think women don't think similar thoughts, but you DON'T KNOW ANY WOMEN either. You're hardly in a position to comment. I've had (counts on fingers) five male lovers, two of them husbands, in my lifetime and I'm hardly a victim.

(Her)
I do not believe that women are better than men. The right to control one's sexuality has to do with more than just free sex and birth control. One's right is also to say "no" and not be harassed because "everybody is doing it"!

Comments

[garpu.livejournal.com]

Oh god. I'm not sure where you'd start. She obviously needs a male friend or two. I can't think of a single man who thinks of women as something to be conquered, especially not if they'd like to have all their limbs still firmly attached.

[thren0dy.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are men like that, and I am just as sure that there are men who are not. I know at least two men who are better feminists than I am.

The idea that all men are like that is degrading to men, and you can't really be a true feminist (in my opinion) when you degrade anyone on the basis of their gender. This reminds me of a Camille Paglia essay where she said something along the lines of how you can't blame men for rape, it's in their nature. Were I a man, I would be deeply insulted by that. It's interesting to note that Camille Paglia comes from an Italian family and the examples of "Cacciatori" and "conquistae" are brought up - I am sure in some cultures there is a higher level of misogyny than in others, but it doesn't mean all men are like that, nor does it mean everyone in a particular culture is like that. It's counting the hits and not the misses. You can't make broad generalizations about men any more than you can about women.

[kwokj.livejournal.com]

yup, needs some male friends, and generally better people around her: "One's right is also to say "no" and not be harassed because "everybody is doing it"!"? oookay.

I secretly watch men on the bus looking at women...I can almost read their minds- their expressions are so transparent! This is a fact of nature, and will never change.

As one former boyfriend and dear friend said, if he were just an animal, he'd be having a lot of sex, but he's not just an animal. He'd be very insulted by your friends view of men.

Also, practically everyone I know knows I'm on the pill, because I talk about it in the context of dysmenhoria, but people know better than to make assumptions about whether or not I'm sexually available or even having sex with the person I'm dating.

[kwokj.livejournal.com]

just to clarify, when I quoted her comment on saying no and expressed befuddlement, I meant that around the people I associate with, I never have to worry about getting harrassed. I really hope that for most people, getting harrassed is the exception, not the rule.

Gender relations

[helenkacan.livejournal.com]

OMG. Your friend's comments have left me very confused.

First of all, the Pill is merely a device, one that offers almost foolproof contraception. A man cannot assume a woman is on it these days (maybe in the 70s it was a different story) unless she tells him in the context that she would like to have sex with him. And, even so, he does not get off the hook. Unless they're both tested and monogamous, he's going to have to use condoms.

A woman can be on the Pill for years to regulate periods and yet still choose whether to take a lover at all. It is still her choice.

Not all men in certain societies treat women as cattle. The smart ones have realized that it's more fun to have a friend in bed, rather than an object that will turn over and ignore him, once his needs have been met.

It's true she needs to find some new friends. If a man treats her disrespecfully, she can and should ignore him. There are nice guys out there. But they won't put up with a whiner with a rock on her shoulder, especially one who thinks they're all potential assailants.

Finally, I wonder (and you didn't mention) if she's Catholic. Certain people who have fundamentalist tendencies like to punish other people. And, no, they can't wait for their God to do it. If two unmarried people are having sex, well, then, punish them. Have the woman get pregnant and then the man will have to marry her. See: just like that, two lives ruined and an unwanted pregnancy. The idea of birth control is repugnant to them, because it takes away all of that pain and misery that could be inflicted.

The same is true about sexually transmitted diseases. You don't like someone because they're gay or bisexual. Well, then, they "deserve" to get sick and die, because they're unnatural and sinners.

And I shouldn't be writing stuff like this when I'm trying to digest my lunch. I had more in my mind - but my 'puter just went blank-blank and I had to recreate my argument. And I went down a different road. Oh, well.
I'll survive.

Hugs,
H.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I do not believe that women are better than men. The right to control one's sexuality has to do with more than just free sex and birth control. One's right is also to say "no" and not be harassed because "everybody is doing it"!

See, this part, I completely agree with. (I also do not believe that men are better than women, for the record.)

I just can't see what it has to do with the rest of the discussion.

[youngfreud.livejournal.com]

I didn't know you knew Catharine MacKinnon. (I would've said Andrea Dworkin, but she's dead now)

I'm mean, wow. She's moved so far left that she's broken through the other end of the political spectrum. I swear that "Pill means you're sexual available" crap sounds like what those religious right-wing pharmacists pull when denying women birth control, or at least a conservative father confronting his daughter who's gone on the Pill.

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

I object to the idea that a
woman who has sex because she enjoys it is "a victim of men".

(Her)
But she is!!! However free and independant and self-assured women become, they will always be looked upon by men as sexual prey


The clearly objectionable slur against men in this comment has already been noted. Also, even if we accept the premise that men will always look at women as sexual prey, the argument that women who /do/ enjoy sex are the particular victims of men doesn't follow. It only follows if what you really believe is that women don't actually gain anything from sex in their own right. If women are going to be the prey of men one way or the other, why can't they enjoy some of it along the way?

I do not believe that women are better than men. The right to control one's sexuality has to do with more than just free sex and birth control. One's right is also to say "no" and not be harassed because "everybody is doing it"!

I can certainly agree that women are not better than men, and that sexual autonomy should include the right to refuse just as much as it includes the right to partake. However, access to birth control and freedom to refuse are /not/ mutually exclusive. Birth control is for, well, controlling birth. As we now well know, a lot of birth control methods do little or nothing to prevent transmission of HIV and other nasties, so citing the Pill as a license to be promiscuous doesn't work so well. Safe sex practices still require the use of condoms, regular STD tests, committed relationships, etc etc.

[shadowcell.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm rather miffed. And I'm a 17-year-old with raging hormones, who pretty much has no choice but to look at females as objects, partially because those females want to be looked at as objects and try their damndest to make the rest of the world view them as objects.

Consequently, these females then complain about being treated like objects...but that's another story.

But she is!!! However free and independant and self-assured women become, they will always be looked upon by men as sexual prey....I know. I secretly watch men on the bus looking at women...I can almost read their minds- their expressions are so transparent! This is a fact of nature, and will never change.

Technically I have only gone through the stunted teenage version of this, and most every social experiences you have as a teenager can be written off as hormones, with no reflection on what you'll be like in the future, but I still take issue with this.

If there are men who look at women as sexual prey, then there are women who look at men as walking bank accounts or social accessories or, basically, objects, just like us men all seem to do. A man might look at a woman like a sex toy, and a woman might look at a man like x amount of free dollars for whatever purpose, but either way it's still objectification. Is viewng a man for money and social status any less abhorrent than viewing a woman for sex?

Besides, if it's a fact of nature, then what is the problem? It's hardwired into male instinct to find a mate, have sex with her, and continue the species. It's also hardwired into female instinct to find a mate, have sex with him, and continue the species. The only thing standing in the way of us all fulfilling that instinctual creed is the the collective society we have spent centuries developing in order to dignify our pursuit of producing offspring.

The Italians are very aware of this - it is with pride that men refer to themselves and other men as " Cacciatori ". And women are something to be "conquistate ". You see it does not matter what WOMEN think. A woman can freely have sex and consider herself equal, while men while avail themselves of her "independence" and still regard her as something to be conquered.

As I already said, women do the same thing—not necessarily with sex, but still the same thing. I do agree that it doesn't matter to a lot of men what women think, but it also doesn't matter to a lot of women what men think. Or it doesn't matter to a lot of men what men think. Or to women what women think. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks. I agree that women can have sex and consider themselves equal, while men don't, but many men can consider themselves equal and are viewed as an object just the same by women. If objectification is the crime, then both sexes are easily guilty. I do also agree that part of controlling your own sexuality is having the right to say no and not being harassed for it, but this is not something exclusive to women. Men face the same thing from their peers—otherwise we wouldn't, say, be labelling all the booksmart guys who don't have girlfriends as nerds.

The whole point that not all men objectify women holds true here, too: not all women objectify men. But ripping on males for doing something females do too is stupid.

And before I'm done...

she flabbergasted me by saying that the Pill was practically a sign to men that a woman was sexually available.

So low-cut tube-tops and miniskirts don't...?

[nolly.livejournal.com]

If there are men who look at women as sexual prey, then there are women who look at men as walking bank accounts or social accessories or, basically, objects, just like us men all seem to do. A man might look at a woman like a sex toy, and a woman might look at a man like x amount of free dollars for whatever purpose, but either way it's still objectification. Is viewng a man for money and social status any less abhorrent than viewing a woman for sex?

But more importantly/less traditionally stereotypically, there are also women who look at men as sexual prey, and men who look at women as walking bank accounts.

[shadowcell.livejournal.com]

Hell, there's also women who look at women as walking bank accounts, men who look at men as sexual prey, and any combination thereof. Objectification isn't limited at all to gender.

[caprine.livejournal.com]

This person is from another planet.

I do not ever wish to visit there.

[blueshaded-lady.livejournal.com]

Something I wonder aloud. What says she *wants* to change her view?

[kishiriadgr.livejournal.com]

I had to present more opposing views than just mine.

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

But she is!!! However free and independant and self-assured women become, they will always be looked upon by men as sexual prey....I know. I secretly watch men on the bus looking at women...

My question to your friend would be "At what point do you believe men stop viewing women as sexual prey? Is there a point at which this happens?" Regardless of answer, whether she believes there is a turning point or not, I think the weird logic behind her argument will become apparent from her answer, and you can begin to dissect her reasoning from there.

You see it does not matter what WOMEN think. A woman can freely have sex and consider herself equal, while men while avail themselves of her "independence" and still regard her as something to be conquered.

I'm sorry, but she's totally mistaken here. The entire idea of conquering someone sexually (shudder, wince) usually involves trickery, or persistance, or persuasion, and implies that there was resistance, or there were obstacles to be overcome. While there are men that do look at women as prey, and that do want to conquer women, thankfully, this doesn't apply to all of them, and frankly, the entire notion DOES NOT APPLY to a woman that freely has sex and thinks of herself as equal (and I highly doubt that men that have sex with a woman that freely joins him for the sheer carnal pleasure of it, really regard it as a conquest - I mean really, a guy would have to be pretty delusional to think he had conquered anyone under those circumstances - not to mention, I've found that men with that attitude are generally pretty unsuccessful in the dating arean, for obvious reasons). A woman's mindset, and attitude are just as important as the man's. If we want to talk about equality let's start there.

It might be worthwhile for your friend to note that many women only start using the birth control pill AFTER they have been in a monogamous relationship for sometime, and both partners have been tested, and both partners have reason to believe that the relationship will continue.

Human Nature

[rachaelll.livejournal.com]

Some observations:

A) We humans are still animals. In nature there are the hunters and the hunted, the flirter, or the flirtee. The idea is to get a partner to procreate with, to a larger degree. Sex is part of what drives our motivations, male or female.

B) Women are not very different from men, just more subtle in the way of control. There is much said in how men dominate and broker power through sexual domination. This is unfortunate, as women can be equally as conniving and manipulative. Wemen are NOT the weaker sex, and survival is driven by both genders with ferocity the is masked by well groomed exteriors.

C) I'm all for the 'None of the Above' response, which is 'not interested in sex, thank you.' While people can be attractive, and appealing, regardless of gender, there is nothing wrong with just not wanting to be intimate with someone. The advantage of being human is the will to enforce our higher thoughts and beliefs upon our own actions.

That being said, a person's opinion is just that - a point of view all their own. A friend doesn't have to have the same beliefs for us to care about who they are, and are free to change and grow as life's experiences compel them.

Re: Human Nature

[kishiriadgr.livejournal.com]

It was the overall man-hating tone I was objecting too, and collecting data against.

Re: Human Nature

[rachaelll.livejournal.com]

I find it easy to paint the human race with that brush *wry smile*. Of course there's always room for some exceptional people, such as yourself.

Man-hating?

[helenkacan.livejournal.com]

Well, if that was her primary objective - to put ALL men into the same mind-set of conquerer, then was the whole anti-Pill thing just a red herring? It still makes no sense to me. Before the Pill, men still had the opportunity to take advantage of women - and the fact that women were at risk of pregnancy was irrelevant to them. They saw, they wanted, they took. And then left the women to deal with the consequences. Anyway, that's why I still think she is overly moralizing about women taking the Pill.

But I thought I would share a little gem from my own life a long time ago. I swore off men after a particularly bad short-lived relationship with a guy. All he wanted was the sex (and, if you know me, it's not as if I didn't like sex!), but he said - if I wanted friendship - to get a dog!!! So, it took a long time for me to get over the hurt and it was only when I started attending an MCC (church with predominantly gay congregation) that I started seeing men as *nice* people. So much so that I started having sex with them again. So, my anecdote leads me to wonder WHAT MAN in particular hurt her or pissed her off - and is she taking out her frustration and anger on all men in general?

Just a thought (leaking out of my head late in the day).
Hugs,
H.