Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Threats

There are rules for women that don't exist for men. No one has to sit you down and tell them to you, it is something we all figure out one way or another. Heck, some christian websites make surveys, asking men what the rules are so that they can let women know. This sociological images post is all about how much young christian dudes appreciate modesty, and what clothes/actions are modest.

Most value modesty a lot in future wives, and have a very old fashioned view of what modesty means. These dudes superficially take responsibility for their behavior in between the huge list of ways women can fuck up modesty, and after claiming that immodest behavior entices men and creates lust that is so impossibly hard to resist. It is the same way that I know I shouldn't steal, but if you leave something valuable right there in front of me, or show off how you have money, well, it created a lust for money in me that is hard to control! Which is to say, that they didn't take responsibility at all.

The young christian dudes looking to meet a modest lady also make it apparent that they want to care about their girlfriends as people, and that the sexuality of women makes it hard for them to do that. They make it seem as though sexual appeal causes them to objectify women, to think of them as less human, when sexuality is a human thing to experience. The comments from men in the survey make it clear that they feel like women force them to feel sexual things, like women are hurting them by trying to ruin their spiritual purity. Sexuality is constructed for young christians as something dirty and shameful and uncontrollable, something they have to have constant vigilance against in order to escape young adulthood spiritually unscathed.

Most of all this system makes women into sex. Their bodies are not allowed any other function than to beam out rape-me-rays with every appearance of female anatomy. Seeing a boob jiggle (while walking!) was rated unsavory to some of these guys, as if boobs lack a non sexual function that require jiggly tissue. The rules and guidelines all push women to hide their femaleness, and for people to be unable to look at a naked women without seeing her as a source of sex. Girls learn that their bodies are there for something, for someone elses sexuality most of all. They never get to just live in themselves, they have to conceal the horrible power in their bodies so boys will consider them human beings instead of as meat. Weirdly enough, performing femininity correctly is the antidote to appearing female. Girls have to watch the way that they dress and act and move in order to not entice anyone. It is a constant chore. Wrapped up in that are other feminine virtues like looking pretty and not offending people.

A young girl might read the opinions of the pro-modesty men and think it is sweet. What strikes a young girl as sweet (since he wants to listen and care for her) is wrapped up inside a threat. If she does femininity wrong then there are consequences for her that dehumanize her and make her impossible to marry. Some girls never get a chance because of their family or their appearance, their race or class, or because they were raped or abused already.

This is why women and girls bother to play this game. The threat is fucking scary. The threat means that you are fair game to the same group of men who really *want* to not objectify you, but can't seem to help it, or other men who don't even pretend to want to know you. It means servicing countless men instead of one.

It means that when someone sells a videotape of your sexual assault for money the jury rules against you. They say that your being in a bar meant you wanted a guy to pull your top off, and saying "no" audibly isn't as meaningful of consent as your existing in the bar with your boobs. It means simply being in a bar and dancing means you are fair game for being made into pornography (that you never see a dime for). It means that women like jane doe who are down to dance and drink somewhere must want it all the time. It means that women who really thought they could enjoy sexual freedom are beaten down with it eventually.

The threat is all out in the open for women in the underclass of sluts, and it is not a coincidence that women who are trying to stay out of that group give up potential power in order to stay safe. Uppity women don't make it far at being feminine, and they don't get to be important people's wives as a result. The visibility of underprivileged women in the political arena is almost non existent. The threat of violence and loss of social standing is an extremely efficient way to mold an army of obedient women (it sure works well here in Zion). It is a game to divide us, both camps of women insult each other for the choices that were made (if any) by the other group.

Women who want so much more in life than safety, who want freedom and go after it are chasing a dream that a more liberal faction of dude sells to em. The porn dream that there are women who will enjoy whatever men feel like doing to her, not knowing she can't undo her sex class status if she finds out it really isn't all that fun. It is a permanent mark wear/impurity on her (objects get over used), instead of being experience (which is what people get from living). She is permanently marked for that usage, and many dudes from all parts of the spectrum benefit. This is why I don't think pro choice dudes are automatically my ally- some men just want abortion and birth control legal so they have more opportunities to get laid without paying for children, not because they give a damn about female sexual autonomy. Most are for legalizing prostitution (which is different than decriminalizing it).

The threat keeps women in line, but it doesn't keep violence at bay. None of this shit works. Women are all united by this reality- the men who beat and rape women usually know their victims, and they come from all kinds of homes. The attempt at damage control is a small dream compared to being free from violence in general, and it is something we can all strive for. There isn't any rule that men have to behave this way or that they cannot be held accountable.

16 comments:

  1. This ties in with your earlier post about women being involved in the skeptic community. Over at the James Randi Educational Fund thread the overwhelming consensus among the men is that the woman who was assaulted was stupid and got what was coming to her due to the fact that she was out dancing at a bar and in possession of boobs, and that her saying no was completely irrelevent.

    Why on earth would I support or hang out with men who think this way? I'd be afraid to go near them if this is how they think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, thats why this blog was started. I was sick of trying there. I was sick of woo at feminist blogs, too.

    Weirdly, I met my feminist nigel via the jref. So it wasn't all bad. There was an awful lot of bullshit though, and I didn't know enough about feminism to name the problems with other people. Tons of dudes told me there *was* no problem, and some of the women there would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. oh hey, look what PZ just posted! It condemns the JREF thread about the GGW fiasco

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/implicit_consentwomen_can_be_s.php

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow.

    I'm here by way of PZ's blog. I sort of skimmed over the JREF forum thread. I'm a man.

    I'm sort of embarrassed for being associated with all sorts of scumbags for being male in this instance. Unholy Sweet Satan, there's something WRONG with almost everyone involved, except for the victim. You don't even have to make it about gender, although it clearly is... no person is allowed to grab another person and pull off their clothing, and no third party should be able to profit off of that sort of inappropriate behavior.

    The JREF thread is probably the worst bit of it that I've seen so far. It seems to me like almost everyone was ignorant of the specifics, and almost everyone was willing to assume the worst about the victim... and it is hard to assume that they were so heartless towards her for any reason besides the fact that she's a woman.

    Ignoring everything else, consent to be filmed is ALWAYS in the form of a written contract. To waive that obvious standard because it was a woman dancing in a "sexy" way is almost the dictionary definition of sexism, isn't it? WTF?!?!

    I'd say more, but I'm pretty enraged right now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ohh man, I've seen so much worse on JREF. Just search for "rape" and see the kind of horrible shit that comes up. I got exhausted trying to argue about it with dudes there.

    It counts when dudes give a damn, improbable joe, so thanks. Just remember that IRL men will take you about 1000x more seriously than a woman if you call out sexism, so that is one of the most useful things you can do with yer privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, I'm another guy who saw this over at PZ's, and is somewhat appalled by the behavior of so many fellow males over at JREF.

    This whole thing seems so logically simple to me.

    Consent for one thing is not consent for the next.
    Consent to be seen dancing on camera is not consent to be seen dancing topless on camera.
    Consent for first base is not consent for second base, consent for second is not consent for third ...
    Consent for a neighbor to borrow a cup of sugar is not consent for them to take the whole sack.

    Makes me wonder how many date rapes were committed by the members of the jury when they were in college.


    I'm curious about the video, (not in the wink-wink way the boors over at JREF are), but the description I've seen said that she said "no" when asked, and pulled her top right back up after it was pulled down. If true, those sound like pretty clear signals of non-consent to me, but then, I've never been able to "get" the whole date rape mind set.

    ReplyDelete
  7. skeptifem,

    You're lucky and should thank goodness that you've met me, because I'm in that even tinier percentage of men who know that they get bonus points in society for being born with a penis, no matter how dumb or useless they are next to the nearest woman.

    Or don't feel thankful, because we both know that's a BS position, and the jackholes who take male privilege for granted should be the exception and not the rule. It shouldn't even be a given that guys should take my position, it should be so common that it doesn't even count as a position at all.

    I guess I get it because I'm a Hispanic guy who looks Caucasian, so I have spent my whole life hearing how white people really talk about race when they think no outsider is looking. When I see the JREF guys being moderately sexist, I know that they are being somewhat guarded, and their real views are even more disgusting than what they have actually posted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I cann say is that it scares the heck out of me that this mind set is so comon and often unnoticed and unchallenged. I'm glad people are talking about this case and its underlie ing causes. Keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also discovered your blog thanks to PZ. Good post.

    I'm a skeptical woman and science professional who largely parted ways from JREF a long time ago for the sexism.

    I don't have the courage to go look at the comments on this subject. Their ugliness on this does not surprise me, but it saddens me as I love Randi and what he stands for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is really just a case of men demanding sexuality from a woman and punishing her when she resists.

    Interestingly enough, I posted PZ's post to my Facebook wall. The first person to show up with the "she had it coming" defense was a woman.

    She was particularly vociferous in her opinion, too. It was kinda scary...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey there,

    I see the Douche Army is out in force again. The bottom line is that if most of these people admit this shit is wrong- then they have to admit they are complicit by consuming it. It's pure denial. As if being skeptical only applied to the woman in the case. Actually, there were one or two people who were just plain skeptical of the story being reported to us correctly, which is legitimate- but they were in the vast minority.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love PZ! I sent him an email about this case and the reaction at JREF and a link to your blog post the other day. I don't know if he was going to post about it anyway, but cool either way. Great to see there are men out there willing to call out other men on this bullshit behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I went ahead and watched the tape- and it's way worse than is even made out. I don't understand why this is not considered a criminal conspiracy. The woman who pulled down the shirt and the cameraman worked together to assault this woman. In a criminal conspiracy it is not legally necessary for both parts to be equally involved.

    I think this could probably be prosecuted under RICO- but obviously no one wants to prosecute. Of course- a lawsuit is the American way- the assault isn't what offends American sensibilities- although they may be sympathetic to the fact that she didn't get paid for it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is something horribly wrong with the legal system in the US. We're regularly informed here in Australia that it is sexual harassment if the recipient feels harassed, and that will kick off an investigation. I can't imagine any 'reasonable person' here that would consider any forced removal of clothing to be anything other than assault.

    I'm with Improbable Joe on the contract thing. Isn't a model release needed for commercial use of 'non news' photos and video recordings? Was there a blanket notice on the bar door saying that anything goes if you enter the premises (some reality TV shows do this)?

    I haven't seen the vid, and have no intention of doing so, but a previous commenter mentioned that the person who pulled the shirt down is a woman that worked for GGW. Does having a woman pull down another woman's top make it OK?

    I hope this is appealed, and if there was a support fund established, I'd donate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "There are rules for women that don't exist for men."

    That is true, but specifically relating to modesty...

    I haven't met very many women that don't value modesty in their male partners as much or more than men do in their female ones... especially when it comes to dress. Sure, womens clothes tend to show a little more skin than men's clothes do, making it more difficult to strike a balance, especially when the ones who are judging you on it have completely inconsistent guidelines. Men however don't have the option at all to wear anything close to that immodest without getting mercilessly ridiculed. Going out in short shorts and trying to get a date? No way. In the cultural environment that a large part of this country lives in, you'd be lucky to not get your ass kicked. This doesn't relate to some sort of biological difference, our culture simply doesn't think that this is acceptable behavior for men.

    The motivations might be different... many men might be worried that their partners might be attracting too much attention from potential competitors, or may be in violation of some religious rule (almost guaranteed to be justification for the previous fear, of course.) People seem to be taught that male nudity is never desirable, and under no circumstances, except when during coitus should your privates be exposed, or even anywhere close to exposed. To do otherwise is 'disgusting', and you're often labeled a pervert. We all know that under the current sexist culture, women alone are to be the objects of desire and men are to mindlessly chase them, and each are to look their part. This is very limiting for *both* genders.

    The effect is the same though. Both genders have rules about what is and is not acceptable dress. The rules for men are *much* stricter than the rules for women.


    Great article, I totally get what you're saying and agree with your overall sentiment, but when making statements like that regarding sexism, I think that it's important to look at both sides of the equation... er... inequality. I'm certainly not trying to say that men have as tough of a time as women do, but it's worth noting that not everything comes up roses on this side either.

    Thanks for reading... just my $0.02.

    ReplyDelete