It’s important to remember that even when someone is doing something incredibly annoying, they’re still a person underneath and deserving of respect. However, when someone is blatantly putting on an act, it makes it harder for me to do this, because all I see is the act, and I no longer see the person.
I read (probably an another thread here) that much of the PUA clientele are just ordinary lonely guys looking for girlfriends. They don’t start out as outwardly misogynistic or looking to dominate women, they just feel they have nowhere else to turn and wind up turning to the PUAs for guidance
It’s saddening how often I see this. It not only embraces toxic masculinity, but it feeds right back into it. It gives MRAs the opportunity to point fingers and say, “see, we were right!”
Same here, sort of? I left home when I was 17 and had a lot of shit to figure out on my own since then. It’s been hit-or-miss, a lot of recalibrations, a lot of “if it’s stupid and it works it ain’t stupid”, but it is what it is. I am not an MRA or a former MRA, but I totally get how someone could become one.
That I think is an inevitable result of any society coordinating what is arguably a human need upon the basis of obscure rituals. Not unlike needing to dance for food, but you are fed only if you get the dance “right”. When people aren’t very conscious of the social protocols they are socialized to, they are in a poor position to explain the purposes or procedures to outsiders. So those people then need to guess, and often guess incorrectly.
I have heard many self-professed men and women alike explain, even as they on the one hand complain about rape culture, that people who don’t “hook up” tend to be passive, lacking in a necessary degree of sexual assertiveness. They are encouraged to be more assertive! Yet this assertiveness would need to manifest itself in very specific ways to not be imposing or creepy. Considering this, I think that MRA activity is sad, but not surprising. To most people, friendship and sexuality are literally based upon social game-playing, but since the players prefer for it to be unconscious, attempts to codify the games tend to be considered crude.
There are other problems which underlie these. Why should one’s identity or confidence depend upon being validated by a sexual partner? Why do people use instinctive mating routines for sex if they are doing it for social or pleasure reasons instead of reproduction? Why not sublimate libidinous drives into more practical activities? If you dislike social games and role-playing, then why even bother codifying them instead of suggesting a better system? Much of this I would think would be alleviated by people asking themselves some fundamental questions about why they feel compelled towards friendship, solitude, dating, sexual relationships, etc.
Again, like in other areas of life, I find that the more basic and fundamental the questions are, the less likely that a person has made the time and effort to really think about them. Which I think are unfortunate consequences of living in a largely compulsive, coercive culture.
I am all in favour of a shift to a more formalized, more equitable dating process. The system that I envision would involve a person, either acting as a volunteer, or, more likely, hired by a school or employed by some sort of governmental entity, acting neutrally as a chaperone/relationship counselor/bodyguard. If adopted universally, such a system could virtually eliminate date rape, coercive relationships, unplanned pregnancy (I envision the chaperone being a source of education about, and perhaps provider of the actual means of, birth control), and destroyed reputations.
Person A could approach a chaperone and request a relationship with Person B (regardless of A or B’s respective genders), and find out even before the question is put to B about a specific relationship with A whether such a relationship is even possible given the person’s preferences, and on what level. If not, A will not even have to risk humiliation by putting their name forward. The chaperones could keep records on who has requested relationships with who, and refuse to ask more than once (twice) to prevent harassment.
Some might say that such a system would take all of the romance out of, well, romance. I disagree: I think that rules enhance the beauty of the thing within them. But then, I find structured poetry far more moving than freeform poetry, and abstract art far less moving than representational art (with some exceptions for each). And, once the rules are enforced and learned as teenagers, like any art form, that’s when you can push the boundaries and even break the rules to make something more beautiful than the rules would ordinarily allow.
Yes, there are multiple problems with this system (foremost among them: finding, hiring, training, and paying for trustworthy people to act as chaperones), which is why it’s a vision, a concept, rather than an actual suggestion. I do, however, think that moving to a more formalized idea of courtship (with all of the patriarchal bugs from the original version ironed out of it) is an extremely attractive idea.
This sounds suspiciously like the “courtship” model some people proposed in the church I grew up in. If anything, the added formality made propositions even scarier.
As I said, I know that it’s not a workable system. I brought it up to show that, as someone who is (to say the least) socially awkward, having a system of well-defined rules for dating, plus an advisor to help people navigate through those rules, is an idea that seems better than our current system of “anything goes.”
The rest of my post is simply me getting hung up on what such a system of rules might entail. Really, though, it all comes down to this:
As I commented in another thread, nothing beats being informed and empowered to make good choices for yourself. Discussing sexuality with parents, teachers and contemporaries in a natural way that presents the many options and different ways to have healthy relationships. Knowing that you are trusted to make informed decisions without shame for the decisions you do make. Knowing the patterns of healthy and abusive relationships and that you have options in the event of abuse. Having a culture behind you that does not tolerate abuse.
My main problem with your system (and it is a big one) is that it’s a top down, controlling approach that will be resisted. It doesn’t respect people’s agency and assumes gender relations that are far from the norm around the world. Toxic masculinity is not maleness, or else there would be very little basis for hope. It’s a cultural value that is taught, just as more respectful values can be taught, and are taught in other countries. Without it, any system is probably doomed to fail. With it, people can negotiate their own relationships on a more individual basis, without the need for a system at all.
This is going to be particularly difficult to achieve with adults who weren’t taught respect as children and aren’t surrounded by a culture of respect. On the other hand, it may be more important than ever.
I agree, 100%, and that’s exactly what one of the roles of the chaperone was supposed to be. A neutral third-party, who can educate, who can be asked questions and give answers that come from science, not dogma. Someone bound to confidentiality, who can be approached without fear of shame. Someone who can help people identify and safely extricate themselves from abusive relationships. Almost a parental surrogate, for those who don’t feel comfortable discussing these issues with their parents, or don’t like the answers they’re getting, or who have parents who won’t discuss it at all.
[quote=“jsroberts, post:76, topic:85306”]
My main problem with your system (and it is a big one) is that it’s a top down, controlling approach that will be resisted.[/quote]
I think the best standards are ones that are codified from the bottom up, and then enforced from the top-down. Standards should be enforcing the rules that people want to have in place, not trying to outlaw normal behaviour. And I would envision it as an opt-out process, though, once established, it might be a big red flag to request to opt-out.
How does it not respect agency? All of the control is still in the hands of the people doing the actual dating. The chaperone should merely be there to make sure that things don’t go beyond the boundaries that the daters themselves decide and agree to.
As for gender relations, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. The idea, in my head, was designed to be gender neutral: that it would work for any two (or more) people who would choose to be in a relationship with each other. The design was just to prevent the worst of the negative outcomes from relationships, and to help steer people towards the right ones.
I’m well aware of this, but the problem with a strictly bottom-up approach is that it relies on there being no horrible people out there. Coming from a background in computer science, with a little bit of education in computer security, I see interpersonal relationships as a network with a few (shoddy and poorly-enforced) protections against bad actors. And sure, the security vulnerabilities that exist are only a problem if bad actors figure out how to exploit them, and end-users don’t take the proper steps to guarantee their own security, but you always have to assume that the end-user will choose convenience over security, and you always have to assume that there will be bad actors seeking to exploit the vulnerabilities in your network. So, I see dating, and I feel an urge (doomed to failure, per the xkcd comic) to fix it.
I acknowledge that that’s the best fix, but as I said, with an (admittedly small) background in computer security, I can’t trust “educate the end-user” as a workable solution; I have to build something that will work without having the user as a single point of failure.
And, for the nth time, I know this system is not workable. I’m not suggesting that we adopt it. Please don’t argue against this system being adopted, because I’m not arguing for it to be adopted. I pointed out one major roadblock in my original post, but I also acknowledged that there were others that I had found.
@popobawa4u asked why we stick to the current “mating routines” instead of coming up with a new system: I said, “I like the idea of a new, more formalized system, and here’s what I came up with when thinking about that… And I’m well aware that the system I described won’t work, but it’s nice to dream.” It’s a demonstration of the urge, for a person to whom computers make infinitely more sense than people do, to impose order on the chaos that is “dating.” I know, per the xkcd comic, that any such system to impose order will create vastly more drama than it solves, but it’s just so attractive a problem to fix that you can’t help proposing solutions for it.
I guess some of this is like the argument that you shouldn’t teach women to stay safe, you should teach men not to rape. In fact, they’re both true and can be approached at the same time. I would say that early and comprehensive education about relationships that focuses both on aspects to do with sex, but also on healthy relationships would empower both men and women to do better in this area. It doesn’t require everyone to be a good actor - in fact, it assumes that people often need to be taught how to be one. And the results are visible, much as the results of good teaching in any area can be seen.
Dealing with a culture without this background will be more difficult, but so is trying to run an economy well without good schooling. It’s not hopeless, but you can’t beat doing it right from an early age.
I think your comment is mostly cool, but this part needs pushback. I’ve never heard someone argue that way. I have heard it argued (and also myself believe) that teaching women how to be safe is often overemphasized, and even completely replaces, teaching men what can lead to (and is) rape.
I guess it’s generally used to push back when people suggest ways that women could avoid getting raped (and thereby placing some of the blame on the victim), so I guess it has a particular purpose in a particular context. You can stop rape by____ is often followed by advice for women to keep safe rather than telling men not to rape or support rape culture.
Something like this – if the issue is campus rape, the audience would presumably include both rapists and victims, or those who could become them in the future. I guess the statement isn’t saying women shouldn’t think about their safety, but that responsibility should be put where it belongs:
On January 24, 2011, Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti and another officer from 31 Division spoke on crime prevention, addressing the issue of campus rape at a York University safety forum at Osgoode Hall Law School. During the talk, Sanguinetti interrupted the more senior officer and said: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
After an article that reported on the situation received international attention, Sanguinetti apologized for the remark saying:
I made a comment which was poorly thought out and did not reflect the commitment of the Toronto Police Service to the victims of sexual assaults. Violent crimes such as sexual assaults can have a traumatizing effect on their victims… My comment was hurtful in this respect. I am embarrassed by the comment I made and it shall not be repeated.
The apology was attached to an email distributed to the Osgoode community by law school dean Lorne Sossin who said they’ve been told the officer “is being disciplined and will be provided with further professional training.” Co-founders Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis decided to redefine the word “slut” as someone who is in control of their own sexuality, to reclaim the word slut as a site of power for women. They observe that historically, “slut” has had negative connotations, and that their goal is to reclaim the term. Their website states:
We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.
Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, ON., where Michael Sanguinetti spoke the words which sparked Slutwalk
Barnett considered the apology was not enough, since the officer’s stereotypical idea still exists in society. “The comment that was made by Officer Sanguinetti comes from a place where sexual profiling and victim blaming is inherent and a large trait and we’d like that changed,” Barnett said, “It isn’t about just one idea or one police officer who practices victim blaming, it’s about changing the system and doing something constructive with anger and frustration.”
[quote=“jsroberts, post:82, topic:85306”]"I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this
[/quote]
Then don’t say it. If that didn’t set off a loud alarm in the officer’s head, then I don’t know what would.
If “how to avoid getting raped” is just code for “don’t dress like a slut”, then I’m against that message. But in reality it’s way more complicated than that. Hopefully the male equivalent goes way beyond “don’t rape” and actually defines rape and all the gray areas etc.
I’m way older than these kids, so I don’t know their experiences or what they’re taught. My college experience was a lot less carefree than a lot of college students, so I can really only guess.
It is an attachment disorder, they do not believe in their own self worth so they overcompensate by surrounding themselves with the signifiers of manhood.
If they believed men, real men, should be sensitive then they would act as such to seek approval from the outside world. They are imitating what their culture tells them a real man should act like.
They are unaware of their own motivations, if those motivations are ever challenged in any meaningful way, that is, they feel like their insecurity will be exposed, they will lash out in blind rage.
I agree that the way this is taught can seem to shift responsibility and blame in onerous ways. But I have been sexually assaulted by both men and women and think it provides helpful perspective to teach both men and women alike (along with the rest of us) how to avoid being either the victim or the rapist. Drastic polarization by gender-split training might be more likely to foster misunderstandings and othering.
