Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hi guys. As you probably know if you pay any attention to the forum, there has been a pretty intense bickering on the forum regarding issues of gender and how they relate to romantic and sexual relationships. Unfortunately, most if not all the threads where discussions like this occurred ended up in name-calling, semantic battles and other bullsh*t, producing very little substantial debate. IMO, this is really a shame, because these topics deserve an actual discussion. I am obviously not complaining from a holier than thou standpoint: I realize that I'm just as guilty of name-calling and hostility as others in these discussions. I won't apologize for my attitude toward some posters, but I'm willing to cut it if this can make the debate more constructive.

So, why wouldn't all of us give it a try? Let's banish words like "prude", "SJW", "misogynist", "sexist" and everything that we keep posting in all of these threads, and actually discuss issues and concepts. I'm an eternal optimist, I know, but I think this is really worth at least trying.

To start off (since we actually need to start somewhere) I'll go a bit personal and try to explain why gender issues matter particularly to me. You may have noticed that, while I'm basically your standard SJW on every issue, I tend to be more passionate (and irritable) on gender-related issues than, say, on racial ones. So, if I try to psychoanalyze myself, there are 3 main reasons I can think of, though they are closely intertwined:

- Firstly, because I consider myself, to some extent, a victim of patriarchy. I know how absurd (and even insulting) I sound saying this, so let me be clear. Obviously as a man I draw considerable benefits from patriarchy, and I am far from sharing the struggles that women face in their lives because of it. It would be ridiculous for me to compare my situation to theirs - kinda like a white Southerner in the antebellum era complaining about slavery because he thinks it makes him lazy. If I am a feminist, it's because I realize that my privilege is unfair and can't tolerate such an injustice. Still, I also see how patriarchal assumptions about masculinity are a problem for me. Society constantly tells me to be assertive, hide my emotions, be physically strong and display that strength in social interaction. Not conforming to these stereotypes can lead to suspicion among many social settings (obviously there are other reasons for this, but I do think it plays a significant part). This might have helped me understand that the idea of patriarchy does not describe a sinister male conspiracy to oppress women, but rather an overbearing social structure (internalized by men and women alike), which forces men into the roles of oppressors as much as it forces women into the roles of oppressed. If men were able to understand this instead of being trapped in an "us vs them" logic, I'm sure patriarchy would be dealt a fatal blow.

- Secondly, to be fully honest, I have developed a strong and partly irrational dislike for the social construct of masculinity. This has very little to do with feminism in itself, since socially constructed gender roles are not bad in themselves - they only become a problem when they are forced on individuals. Still, not only do I think that it is wrong to force individuals into gender roles, I also think the role men are forced into is a particularly awful one. I don't have much regard for socially constructed femininity either (remembering that gender roles test I took a while ago, I'm more "nonmasculine" than I am "feminine"). But while femininity just strikes me as shallow and a bit pathetic, I can't help but see masculinity as barbaric and often downright cruel. I'm really creeped out by this whole glorification, not only of physical force, but of violence itself (come on, you can't deny most social representations of masculinity rotate around this), allied with a good deal of arrogance and narcissism. While the whole point of questioning gender roles as a man is precisely to be aware that I don't have to follow this model, patriarchy is so pervasive (and, in this case, so closely related to basic animal instincts) that I will never be fully immune from it. I'll let you judge whether what I'm describing qualifies as self-hatred or not. Anyway, I obviously try not to judge people based on their gender, as that would be the exact opposite of feminism.

- Finally, there is the simple fact that I am a 20-year old guy suffering from the absence of any kind of romantic experience. I know I should be able to separate political debate from my personal issues, but having a basic understanding of feminism can only have an influence on my approach to these issues. It is very important for me to be sure that my behavior is consistent with my principles, but patriarchal instincts are so deeply ingrained in one's psyche that they are often difficult to spot. For example, I recently realized that I am dangerously close to the category of so-called "Nice Guys". Basically, I fit most Nice Guy traits except misogyny and manipulativeness. I do obviously despise the concept of "friendzone" and am proud of having many good female friends, but after my recent experiences I can tell that the pain expressed by some of this people is understandable. There certainly are many reasons why I am not as lovable as most people of my age, and most of them have nothing to do with patriarchy. I am, after all, a lazy, prickly, socially inept nerd. Yet (as an example of what I was talking about in the first bullet point) the fact that I am so much below the "proper" level of assertiveness that society demands to a man also plays a role. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I might subconsciously tend to put the emphasis on my feminist beliefs based on the naive idea that this is a way for me to "deserve" being loved (I mean in a general sense, not from someone in particular). And yes, I know this sort of mindset is actually a pretty [inks]ed up form of pseudo-chivalrous sexism. You just can't ask your subconscious to be rational...

So yeah, I ended up talking more about myself and my creepy obsessions than about actual gender issues. I'm sorry I found no better way to start this... Still, I hope the discussion soon moves to a more serious ideological debate.

[bedstuy]

I don't really see what your point is.

My advice is not to buy into this hyper-sensitive college-campus version of feminism.  It just exists as a vehicle for people to make themselves into victims so they can blame other people for life being complicated and difficult.  In your personal life, blaming other people is a horrible, pathological life outlook that will only bring you misery.

Just try to be yourself, treat other people well and start dating some girls.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't really see what your point is.

The point was to move away from the continuous tsunami of vitriolic discussions on gender which achieve absolutely nothing except cementing each poster's hatred/contempt for other posters. Admittedly, this objective was poorly carried away, but it's well known I suck at starting threads.

[barfbag]

I don't really see what your point is.

My advice is not to buy into this hyper-sensitive college-campus version of feminism.  It just exists as a vehicle for people to make themselves into victims so they can blame other people for life being complicated and difficult.  In your personal life, blaming other people is a horrible, pathological life outlook that will only bring you misery.

Just try to be yourself, treat other people well and start dating some girls.

Ah yes college preaches feminism until weekend nights when girls are getting knocked up while drunk at parties. What hypocrisy!

[afleitch]

I tend to think the forums, obsession (perhaps too strong a word) with feminism rests on the fact that we have virtually no non-trans women on this board. So ultimately discussions on such matters basically make this place an echo chamber.

My input is this. I am a 29 year old homosexual male. I have a husband now so I am strictly monogamous, but I've been sexually active since I was a teenager. I have had sex just for thrills and had random encounters with people I didn't know. That was then. I don't regret it or consider it anything to be ashamed of, I've had full sexual health clinic check ups every few months and have befallen less 'problems' than my straight male friends have. The thing is, carnally, masculinity for me is everything in the bedroom. There has to be physicality in sex; a man getting f-cked by another man is incredibly masculine if he takes it and enjoys it as a man should enjoy it. Anyone who thinks it's somehow emasculating, that gay sex is emasculating is so far from the truth (feminist discussions of gay sex are fascinating by the way) but homosexual masculinity in all it's forms violates the hetero normative views of being a man is. Of course a man actually being a chauvinistic douche bag is a complete turn off but that's part of the dichotomy.

I've been groped by women on probably more unwanted occasions than by men. Being gay means I'm a non threatening and some women take liberties with that. Again that may violate peoples preconceived notions of women, but if women are in an environment where you, dear reader, as the heterosexual male are not present women are extraordinarily different sexual creatures.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I tend to think the forums, obsession (perhaps too strong a word) with feminism rests on the fact that we have virtually no non-trans women on this board. So ultimately discussions on such matters basically make this place an echo chamber.

Actually, the interesting thing is that gender-related polemics really emerged over the last year or so. I've been there since February 2009 and I have no memory of any major discussion emerging on this topic until recently (the exception I can think of is my feud with Gustaf over the DSK affair, when I was, retrospectively, on the wrong side of the argument - though it's a bit more complicated than that). I think this started to emerge with several instances of pretty gross misogyny (Sandra Fluke thread and all) which suddenly cast light on the forum's underlying issues with its underlying view of women. Before that point, this wasn't really an issue (precisely because there are so few women to actually point it out). I guess the arrival of posters particularly well-versed on these topics (Nathan, DRJ, etc) also helped raise awareness among similar-minded but less vocal posters. Overall, I would agree that the focus on this topic has become excessive in recent days, mainly because the discussion has become very passionate (again, I'm just as guilty as others). But despite this, I think the issue has never been discussed in depth... hence this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting perspective. I apologize if I have seemed to imply there was something inherently wrong with masculinity - really, the OP should not be taken at face value, it's mostly an attempt at exploring my own psychoses. I do have some personal qualms among no-strings sex, but I don't judge other people for this. Overall, I think feminism naturally goes hand in hand with the LGBT movement, since both challenge the preconceived notions of patriarchy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no problem believing this. I think it is actually a key point of feminist theory that abusive behavior is a consequence of power relationships between genders, not an aspect inherent to one's sexuality. In situations where power structures are different, I have no doubt women could display the same potential for it as men.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm the same age as Antonio almost to the day, and have more romantic experience insofar as--and only insofar as--several of my more intense friendships have acquired romantic overtones, usually at the same time as they were falling apart because of irreconcilable differences in personality and values, or in one case because I had wronged the person in question during a period of psychosis in the past and it had become an issue again at the worst possible time almost a year later. (This, at least, I consider more my fault than not.) In none of these situations would I consider what I had in this relationship a 'boyfriend-girlfriend' or even 'girlfriend-girlfriend' situation. All were with women who identified as bisexual or pansexual. The first is...something I still have a hard time getting past, and something that's informed my subsequent relationships of this kind and made me to some extent actively resist this process because of how traumatic it was.

Even though it can be debated whether any of these connections were really romantic at all and even though none of them were in any way sexual I feel guilty, to be honest, about having been through this multiple times, both because people ended up hurt and because I have an unusually strong commitment belief in the idea of lifelong monogamy, both for religious reasons and reasons related to my personal and family background. I've had my attitude towards this described as a form of internalized slut-shaming but I don't think that's accurate, partly because this is a standard that I chose for myself that absolutely nobody has ever subjected me to even in the abstract (and that indeed several of my loved ones have unsuccessfully tried to get me to let go) and partly because 'slut' is one of those words that I object to using or accepting the use of even in a critical context.

(This is on top of my concerns about my gender identity.)

Independently of my own issues, I tend to disapprove on both religious-moralistic and feminist grounds of the way a lot of people--I don't want to say 'most', because who's to define 'most'?--but a lot--approach relationships and love, in particular as it relates to expectations of gender roles. Obviously people aren't all going to have pan-whatever orientations or non-binary gender identities (or 'gender identities' at all, as such; as I said in the Manning thread and afleitch, patrick, and maybe a couple of others seemed to back up, I've encountered the idea that to some extent thinking about gender identity as an explicit and somehow apprehendable thing is only really common about people whose gender identity differs from social norms anyway, and I think this is anecdotally a fairly compelling notion)--I for one have never had any desire for a relationship with a non-feminine (in presentation, in appearance, in demeanor) person so it would be even more than usually hypocritical of me to say that panromantic asexual non-binary identity or whatever is the only morally acceptable kind--but I see a lot of really damaging notions and dynamics that play out in what many people would probably consider relatively basic and inoffensive kinds of romantic and sexual interaction. I don't want to say that this is particularly the case among the youth, and I don't really want to call the youth 'the youth' because it makes me feel more-than-usually like an old fogey before my time, but being a university student I do spend most of my time around people roughly my own age and notice what they get up to more. (As such my views on what Problems In Modern Sexuality ™ are probably suffer from a sampling bias, possibly a severe one.) In particular I have a problem with what we might call the reification of sex. This doesn't refer only to casual sex and might not apply to all casual sex that people have but I think, especially considering the function of consumerism in late capitalism in general (among other things), there's a lot of overlap within the bounds of contemporary young-person sex and romance (treating a sexual experience as a transaction, treating a romantic relationship as a business relationship), and in addition to being (in my view) disrespectful of the entirety of the person on spiritual and feminist levels I think a lot of the types of less-serious or less-sincere relationships that certain folks have serve a profoundly alienating function. Again, this isn't limited to casual sex. I have the same problem with a lot of the dating culture around me even among people who do 'date' as such (a group that includes most of my friends, although many of them are in serious, respectful, seemingly well-lived relationships), although I find it harder to put my finger on what precisely about that bothers me.

Another thing that bothers me is the devaluation of femininity or traditionally feminine traits that one sees around, not because I think that these are traits or roles that I think it's better for women to have than other traits or roles but because I think that they're traits and roles that should be available to anybody who wants them or anybody to whom they are what comes naturally. There's nothing wrong with 'other girls' or being 'like other girls'--or even with the dreaded teenage or preteen girl except in the sense that the sort of culture that's made available to teenage and preteen girls is at this particular moment in this particular society generally terrible for reasons that have nothing to do with what teenage and preteen girls are or aren't capable of maintaining interest in and everything to do with the fact that we live in a culture that presupposes that teenage and preteen girls aren't worth providing with the culture that they could be and that culture involving traditionally feminine interests isn't worth working on hard enough to do well. Constructing femininity in such a way that it revolves around masculinity in some sort of off-balance yin-yang function or around presenting itself in a way that men want is an awful idea for reasons that should be obvious. Traditionally feminine traits aren’t just mirrors or shadows of traditionally masculine traits. They exist conceptually good and well on their own and the idea that they don’t is prima facie a whole load of crap.

It's tempting, to me at least, to advocate a return to some sort of more traditional setup only removing aspects of the variable of gender, but in my thinking about this recently I've discovered that it's actually a lot harder to divorce prescribed gender roles from other aspects of 'traditional relationships' than I would like, and besides, the 'traditional setup' isn't. It's an idealization of the past based on exemplary rather than representative examples and grass-is-greener thinking, and intellectually I know that out-of-hand idealization of the past is just as disrespectful to the actual conditions of history than out-of-hand demonization of it, even if I am more prone to it within the terms of my own psychology. What's needed, or what I would like to see (which isn't necessarily the same thing, obviously), is an ethic that treats past ideals with critical interest and attempts to unite moralistic and feminist/queer understandings. And I don't believe that such an ethic can afford to be generically 'positive' or generically 'negative' about sex, about gender or lack of gender, or about much of anything else that comes to mind right now. I could elaborate on this concept of a solution and how exactly it relates to the specific perceived problems that I’m discussing more later if anybody wishes.

[bedstuy]

I'm the same age as Antonio almost to the day, and have more romantic experience insofar as--and only insofar as--several of my more intense friendships have acquired romantic overtones, usually at the same time as they were falling apart because of irreconcilable differences in personality and values, or in one case because I had wronged the person in question during a period of psychosis in the past and it had become an issue again at the worst possible time almost a year later. (This, at least, I consider more my fault than not.) In none of these situations would I consider what I had in this relationship a 'boyfriend-girlfriend' or even 'girlfriend-girlfriend' situation. All were with women who identified as bisexual or pansexual. The first is...something I still have a hard time getting past, and something that's informed my subsequent relationships of this kind and made me to some extent actively resist this process because of how traumatic it was.

Even though it can be debated whether any of these connections were really romantic at all and even though none of them were in any way sexual I feel guilty, to be honest, about having been through this multiple times, both because people ended up hurt and because I have an unusually strong commitment belief in the idea of lifelong monogamy, both for religious reasons and reasons related to my personal and family background. I've had my attitude towards this described as a form of internalized slut-shaming but I don't think that's accurate, partly because this is a standard that I chose for myself that absolutely nobody has ever subjected me to even in the abstract (and that indeed several of my loved ones have unsuccessfully tried to get me to let go) and partly because 'slut' is one of those words that I object to using or accepting the use of even in a critical context.

(This is on top of my concerns about my gender identity.)

Independently of my own issues, I tend to disapprove on both religious-moralistic and feminist grounds of the way a lot of people--I don't want to say 'most', because who's to define 'most'?--but a lot--approach relationships and love, in particular as it relates to expectations of gender roles. Obviously people aren't all going to have pan-whatever orientations or non-binary gender identities (or 'gender identities' at all, as such; as I said in the Manning thread and afleitch, patrick, and maybe a couple of others seemed to back up, I've encountered the idea that to some extent thinking about gender identity as an explicit and somehow apprehendable thing is only really common about people whose gender identity differs from social norms anyway, and I think this is anecdotally a fairly compelling notion)--I for one have never had any desire for a relationship with a non-feminine (in presentation, in appearance, in demeanor) person so it would be even more than usually hypocritical of me to say that panromantic asexual non-binary identity or whatever is the only morally acceptable kind--but I see a lot of really damaging notions and dynamics that play out in what many people would probably consider relatively basic and inoffensive kinds of romantic and sexual interaction. I don't want to say that this is particularly the case among the youth, and I don't really want to call the youth 'the youth' because it makes me feel more-than-usually like an old fogey before my time, but being a university student I do spend most of my time around people roughly my own age and notice what they get up to more. (As such my views on what Problems In Modern Sexuality ™ are probably suffers from a sampling bias, possibly a severe one.) In particular I have a problem with what we might call the reification of sex. This doesn't refer only to casual sex and might not apply to all casual sex that people have but I think, especially considering the function of consumerism in late capitalism in general (among other things), there's a lot of overlap within the bounds of contemporary young-person sex and romance(treating a sexual experience as a transaction, treating a romantic relationship as a business relationship), and in addition to being (in my view) disrespectful of the entirety of the person on spiritual and feminist levels I think a lot of the types of less-serious or less-sincere relationships that certain folks have serve a profoundly alienating function. Again, this isn't limited to casual sex. I have the same problem with a lot of the dating culture around me even among people who do 'date' as such (a group that includes most of my friends, although many of them are in serious, respectful, seemingly well-lived relationships), although I find it harder to put my finger on what precisely about that bothers me.

Another thing that bothers me is the devaluation of femininity or traditionally feminine traits that one sees around, not because I think that these are traits or roles that I think it's better for women to have than other traits or roles but because I think that they're traits and roles that should be available to anybody who wants them or anybody to whom they are what comes naturally. There's nothing wrong with 'other girls' or being 'like other girls'--or even with the dreaded teenage or preteen girl except in the sense that the sort of culture that's made available to teenage and preteen girls is at this particular moment in this particular society generally terrible for reasons that have nothing to do with what teenage and preteen girls are or aren't capable of maintaining interest in and everything to do with the fact that we live in a culture that presupposes that teenage and preteen girls aren't worth providing with the culture that they could be and that culture involving traditionally feminine interests isn't worth working on hard enough to do well. Constructing femininity in such a way that it revolves around masculinity in some sort of off-balance yin-yang function or around presenting itself in a way that men want is an awful idea for reasons that should be obvious. Traditionally feminine traits aren’t just mirrors or shadows of traditionally masculine traits. They exist conceptually good and well on their own and the idea that they don’t is prima facie a whole load of crap.

It's tempting, to me at least, to advocate a return to some sort of more traditional setup only removing aspects of the variable of gender, but in my thinking about this recently I've discovered that it's actually a lot harder to divorce prescribed gender roles from other aspects of 'traditional relationships' than I would like, and besides, the 'traditional setup' isn't. It's an idealization of the past based on exemplary rather than representative examples and grass-is-greener thinking, and intellectually I know that out-of-hand idealization of the past is just as disrespectful to the actual conditions of history than out-of-hand demonization of it, even if I am more prone to it within the terms of my own psychology. What's needed, or what I would like to see (which isn't necessarily the same thing, obviously), is an ethic that treats past ideals with critical interest and attempts to unite moralistic and feminist/queer understandings. And I don't believe that such an ethic can afford to be generically 'positive' or generically 'negative' about sex, about gender or lack of gender, or about much of anything else that comes to mind right now. I could elaborate on this concept of a solution and how exactly it relates to the specific perceived problems that I’m discussing more later if anybody wishes.

Just to play the devil's advocate:

Is the reason that you're being so oblique and long-winded that if you expressed yourself with some degree of parsimony your argument would be ridiculous to most people, such as it is an argument and not ruminating on your own personal insecurities and quirks?

Is your attitude towards relationships and sex just a defense mechanism or an ex post justification of your own fear of rejection and pain? 

[opebo]

Let me just point out the obvious connection between your 'concerns' and your inability to get laid.   Of course its a chicken and egg thing, but I suspect if you'd order some testosterone shots from wherever Torie's getting them, or otherwise 'grow a pair', you'd get laid just fine.

When I was a lad your age, I had a string of very hot girlfriends.. and I wasn't athletic - in fact I was a little bit nerdy.  All it takes is being outgoing and hedonistic - enjoying life.  It is hard to imagine anything less attractive than a person who goes around worrying about 'right and wrong' all the time.

[barfbag]

Let me just point out the obvious connection between your 'concerns' and your inability to get laid.   Of course its a chicken and egg thing, but I suspect if you'd order some testosterone shots from wherever Torie's getting them, or otherwise 'grow a pair', you'd get laid just fine.

When I was a lad your age, I had a string of very hot girlfriends.. and I wasn't athletic - in fact I was a little bit nerdy.  All it takes is being outgoing and hedonistic - enjoying life.  It is hard to imagine anything less attractive than a person who goes around worrying about 'right and wrong' all the time.

Opebo I've finally found something we agree on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Just to play the devil's advocate:

Is the reason that you're being so oblique and long-winded that if you expressed yourself with some degree of parsimony your argument would be ridiculous to most people, such as it is an argument and not ruminating on your own personal insecurities and quirks?

No, that's not the reason. This really is supposed to be more a rumination than an argument, for one thing, and I accepted from the get-go that it would probably sound ridiculous to a lot of posters no matter how I worded it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Thank you for asking these questions! It's better to have them asked and answered than just hanging there.

Let me just point out the obvious connection between your 'concerns' and your inability to get laid.   Of course its a chicken and egg thing, but I suspect if you'd order some testosterone shots from wherever Torie's getting them, or otherwise 'grow a pair', you'd get laid just fine.

But I don't want to 'get laid'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care.

[DC Al Fine]

It is very important for me to be sure that my behavior is consistent with my principles, but patriarchal instincts are so deeply ingrained in one's psyche that they are often difficult to spot. For example, I recently realized that I am dangerously close to the category of so-called "Nice Guys". Basically, I fit most Nice Guy traits except misogyny and manipulativeness.

Coming from a background that views patriarchy positively, I wouldn't say a "Nice Guy" has anything to do with patriarchy. Men are supposed to be assertive, running the family etc and the Nice Guy's behavior contradicts that ethos. Could you give me your working definition of patriarchy?  I'm getting the feeling that it goes beyond the traditional "man runs the family" stuff of old.

[Velasco]

Let me just point out the obvious connection between your 'concerns' and your inability to get laid.   Of course its a chicken and egg thing, but I suspect if you'd order some testosterone shots, you'd get laid just fine.

You forgot telling Nathan that testosterone has secondary effects as hair loss. Perhaps some people just don't want to go bald. It's a question of priorities.

In all seriousness, I think it would be great trying to dismantle some stereotypes about feminism on the part of posters whom are knowledgeable on the subject. Another exchange on the "prude brood" no, please.

Coming from a background that views patriarchy positively, I wouldn't say a "Nice Guy" has anything to do with patriarchy. Men are supposed to be assertive, running the family etc and the Nice Guy's behavior contradicts that ethos.

The negative meaning of "Nice Guy" is someone who does not express his true feelings and is showing a kind and friendly behaviour with the secret aim of winning the girl's heart and, eventually, having sex. Someone who projects a false image of himself and is manipulative, in other words. At the bottom of their hearts, some nice guys may be true male chauvinists.

Isn't there too much self reproach in the sentence "I am dangerously close to the 'Nice Guy' category"? It's not so bad being a "nice guy", if you're neither misogynist nor manipulative.

[Associate Justice PiT]

- Finally, there is the simple fact that I am a 20-year old guy suffering from the absence of any kind of romantic experience. I know I should be able to separate political debate from my personal issues, but having a basic understanding of feminism can only have an influence on my approach to these issues. It is very important for me to be sure that my behavior is consistent with my principles, but patriarchal instincts are so deeply ingrained in one's psyche that they are often difficult to spot. For example, I recently realized that I am dangerously close to the category of so-called "Nice Guys". Basically, I fit most Nice Guy traits except misogyny and manipulativeness. I do obviously despise the concept of "friendzone" and am proud of having many good female friends, but after my recent experiences I can tell that the pain expressed by some of this people is understandable. There certainly are many reasons why I am not as lovable as most people of my age, and most of them have nothing to do with patriarchy. I am, after all, a lazy, prickly, socially inept nerd. Yet (as an example of what I was talking about in the first bullet point) the fact that I am so much below the "proper" level of assertiveness that society demands to a man also plays a role. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I might subconsciously tend to put the emphasis on my feminist beliefs based on the naive idea that this is a way for me to "deserve" being loved (I mean in a general sense, not from someone in particular). And yes, I know this sort of mindset is actually a pretty [inks]ed up form of pseudo-chivalrous sexism. You just can't ask your subconscious to be rational...

     I know many women who are avowed feminists and they have broadly agreed that a strong, assertive man is desirable. It's perfectly possible to be both respectful and assertive, but if you go in being afraid that you will act in misogynistic ways then your love life is a dead duck.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nathan, I understand your reticence toward the way modern society treats sexual and romantic relationships (I admit I've had a hard time following you through the entirety of your post, so pardon me if I misunderstand or leave out parts of your argument). Indeed I share your concerns with regard to the commodification, not only of sex, but indeed even of romantic sentiments themselves. This to me is more of a societal than a moral reflection though. People who engage in casual sex don't deserve to be shamed (unless such casual sex is adulterous, obtained through deception, or anything of this sort), in much the same way as "slutty" girls don't deserve to be shamed even though the hypersexualization of female bodies is a problem. Ultimately, this is an area where individuals should be free to make their choices without any societal pressure. The problem is that, nowadays, the societal pressure seems to be toward causal sex. And that's terrible.

Also, I have always wondered how you manage to reconcile your traditionalist outlook with such a full-fledged feminist and queer critique of traditional gender identity. Certainly there are a few points of convergence (at least with the sort of "prude" feminism which we both lean towards). But overall, feminism and LGBT activism strike me as the most glaring demonstration that humanity needs to move away from its dark past and break with abhorrent traditions. At least over the past 500 years, you can't deny that patriarchy has consistently seen its grip on society weaken. And it seems reasonable to hope that the next 500 years will see furthers blows on it and further acceptance of various forms of gender identity and sexual orientation. How to call this other than progress?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Indeed, I don't see why defense mechanisms are considered an inherently bad thing. Of course, some defense mechanisms taken to extreme levels can degenerate into full-fledged psychoses... but this is no different from more positive psychological mechanisms. And at a low levels, defense mechanisms precisely serve to preserve one's sanity. As I have explained, my insistence on promoting feminism is at least partly a defense mechanism against the patriarchal instincts I see in myself. I can only "forgive" myself if I prove to myself I can be an authentic feminist regardless of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I don't want to 'get laid'.[/quote]

Personally, I do want to, just not at any cost. This forum tends to forget that there might be more important things in life than "getting laid". Like, you know, being at peace with your conscience. Of course, Opebo doesn't have a conscience, so I see where he comes from.

Could you give me your working definition of patriarchy?  I'm getting the feeling that it goes beyond the traditional "man runs the family" stuff of old.

Patriarchy, in a nutshell, is the set of societal norms which govern the way individuals are supposed to act and behave based on their gender. It's basically a giant, systematic form of double standards. It operates primarily through stereotypes ("men are like this, women are like that"), which it assumes have a natural/biological origins. An individual's actions are then judged through the lens of these stereotypes, and if a man or a woman acts in a way that contradicts said stereotype, they are condemned by society. Patriarchy's assumptions touch a wide range of topics and sometimes are even contradictory (see the Madonna/Whore dichotomy), but they are largely invisible to those who don't want to see it (this is true of men and women alike - the only ones who can see it more easily than others are probably transgenders). Also, regarding your sig, He-Man is indeed as much a part of patriarchy as Barbie is, and feminists condemn imposed norms of masculinity and femininity alike.

Isn't there too much self reproach in the sentence "I am dangerously close to the 'Nice Guy' category"? It's not so bad being a "nice guy", if you're neither misogynist nor manipulative.

Maybe I am indeed too harsh with myself. I would be the first to be happy if this were the case. That said, the nice guy traits I have certainly include the tendency to act nice, not out of inherent kindness, but because this makes socialization easier. I am not sure if this counts as manipulation or not (is an act still an act if you keep it throughout your entire life? doesn't it become genuine at least to some degree?). At least, I never have, and never will, be nice to a girl simply to "get laid" and I am happy if I make a new friend regardless of their gender. Though of course it is possible to be in a situation where a love feeling is reciprocated only in terms of friendship, and I think it is normal to be upset about that. Also, I personally feel that I deserve to be loved in a general sense (or at least that I deserve it as much as other people who are loved do) and I am not sure if this qualifies as "male sense of entitlement" or merely human vanity. I might be overthinking all this, but over-analyzing myself has been my favorite pastime for a long time.

I know many women who are avowed feminists and they have broadly agreed that a strong, assertive man is desirable. It's perfectly possible to be both respectful and assertive, but if you go in being afraid that you will act in misogynistic ways then your love life is a dead duck.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that my unassertive personality has little to do with my feminist conviction. Feminism certainly makes me more cautious about what I should say, but overall that doesn't change much. It would be insulting to assertive men (which quite a few of my friends are) to equate assertiveness with misogyny - and it would also be a form of reverse sexism. I am unassertive, mainly, because that's what my personality is. That's who I am. And while there is nothing wrong with preferring assertive men, the fact that such an importance is given to assertiveness in men as opposed to other qualities, is part of patriarchy. If I were a woman, I'm pretty sure this would actually help me (not saying I'd be better off overall, considering that other aspects of me would be even more ill-regarded if I were a woman).

[bedstuy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Indeed, I don't see why defense mechanisms are considered an inherently bad thing. Of course, some defense mechanisms taken to extreme levels can degenerate into full-fledged psychoses... but this is no different from more positive psychological mechanisms. And at a low levels, defense mechanisms precisely serve to preserve one's sanity. As I have explained, my insistence on promoting feminism is at least partly a defense mechanism against the patriarchal instincts I see in myself. I can only "forgive" myself if I prove to myself I can be an authentic feminist regardless of them.

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Indeed, I don't see why defense mechanisms are considered an inherently bad thing. Of course, some defense mechanisms taken to extreme levels can degenerate into full-fledged psychoses... but this is no different from more positive psychological mechanisms. And at a low levels, defense mechanisms precisely serve to preserve one's sanity. As I have explained, my insistence on promoting feminism is at least partly a defense mechanism against the patriarchal instincts I see in myself. I can only "forgive" myself if I prove to myself I can be an authentic feminist regardless of them.

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

The idea that a belief system that doesn't involve 'success with the ladies' can automatically be entirely attributed to sour grapes about lacking 'success with the ladies' is odd, to say the least, and I'm entirely certain I disagree with it completely. Even if that's not exactly what you're saying here, and I understand that it actually likely isn't, I still find this proposed aetiology a little disrespectful towards my experiences and my view of things. When I say 'fear and pain' I am not referring to sour grapes.

Antonio, I'll get back to you later today, all right? I want to go into some detail there.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I know many women who are avowed feminists and they have broadly agreed that a strong, assertive man is desirable. It's perfectly possible to be both respectful and assertive, but if you go in being afraid that you will act in misogynistic ways then your love life is a dead duck.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that my unassertive personality has little to do with my feminist conviction. Feminism certainly makes me more cautious about what I should say, but overall that doesn't change much. It would be insulting to assertive men (which quite a few of my friends are) to equate assertiveness with misogyny - and it would also be a form of reverse sexism. I am unassertive, mainly, because that's what my personality is. That's who I am. And while there is nothing wrong with preferring assertive men, the fact that such an importance is given to assertiveness in men as opposed to other qualities, is part of patriarchy. If I were a woman, I'm pretty sure this would actually help me (not saying I'd be better off overall, considering that other aspects of me would be even more ill-regarded if I were a woman).

     You don't exactly have to be an alpha male, but being more confident makes a big difference. If you are worried about what you say, then people will pick that up and react less positively overall. This is something that I have noticed in a broad variety of social interactions. Assertiveness is highly emphasized as an attribute, but in many ways it is an expression of confidence. I'm not naturally confident, and it's something that I've had to work on for a long time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

What exactly warranted this overly smug and condescending tone and the good number of baseless assumption you are making about me (especially in a thread where I've shown so much willingness to actually reveal important details of my private life)?

You raised valid points which I would have answered, but even by the broad standards of politeness I admittedly wish to uphold in this thread, I don't think you deserve an articulate answer.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This thread made Nathan my favourite poster on this forum.

[bedstuy]

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

What exactly warranted this overly smug and condescending tone and the good number of baseless assumption you are making about me (especially in a thread where I've shown so much willingness to actually reveal important details of my private life)?

You raised valid points which I would have answered, but even by the broad standards of politeness I admittedly wish to uphold in this thread, I don't think you deserve an articulate answer.

Fine.  I don't think you understand what I'm saying though.  

I don't know you.  But, you're the one that decided to connect this larger social issue with your personal life.  Thus, my advice is to question whether your own feelings and experiences, whatever they are, compromise your objectivity and reasonableness with regard to these issues.  But, I wouldn't presume to know exactly where you're coming from or to tell you how to live your life.  I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

Personally, I just tend to bristle at what seems like a sanctimonious theory about society coming from a college-aged kid.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You don't exactly have to be an alpha male, but being more confident makes a big difference. If you are worried about what you say, then people will pick that up and react less positively overall. This is something that I have noticed in a broad variety of social interactions. Assertiveness is highly emphasized as an attribute, but in many ways it is an expression of confidence. I'm not naturally confident, and it's something that I've had to work on for a long time.

Believe me, I'm already working on my self-confidence, and I've made some major progress with it in the past 5 years or so. I know that there is nothing good about lacking self-confidence. That said, I don't think self-confidence and assertiveness are exactly the same thing. Self-confidence is a psychological state - assertiveness is a behavior. There are ways to project confidence without imposing its views on others or taking charge of every situation. I can understand why some level of assertiveness is a good thing, but excessive assertiveness is even worse in my view. I strive to have the level of assertiveness which I consider proper, but this level of assertiveness is still considered too low for a man by patriarchal standards.

[opebo]

This thread made Nathan my favourite poster on this forum.

Why?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know you.

That's weird, because reading your post it seemed like you had unlocked the secret about my existence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, I'm actually willing to question my own beliefs and examine the part of irrationality in them, in the hope that this will help all of us get back to theoretical discussion. Obviously we all have psychological failings that affect the way we examine issues. The goal was not to turn this into another "advice for self-confidence" thread, especially if the advice in question is offered in such a self-righteous manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was doing. Too bad you chose to ignore my own introspection and instead chose to draw your own conclusions on me based on nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apology accepted. If you actually read my previous posts, you will find bits where I speculate about what may be the roots of some of my subconscious takes on gender issues. You could contribute to this thread by giving your thoughts on them. Or sharing your own personal take on gender issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologize if what I said sounded sanctimonious, but I don't think it did. Apart from that, I would point out that this forum (or if not this forum, at least this board) is dedicated to expressing one's "theory about society". And that, like it or not, most people here are college or high school-aged kids.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You don't exactly have to be an alpha male, but being more confident makes a big difference. If you are worried about what you say, then people will pick that up and react less positively overall. This is something that I have noticed in a broad variety of social interactions. Assertiveness is highly emphasized as an attribute, but in many ways it is an expression of confidence. I'm not naturally confident, and it's something that I've had to work on for a long time.

Believe me, I'm already working on my self-confidence, and I've made some major progress with it in the past 5 years or so. I know that there is nothing good about lacking self-confidence. That said, I don't think self-confidence and assertiveness are exactly the same thing. Self-confidence is a psychological state - assertiveness is a behavior. There are ways to project confidence without imposing its views on others or taking charge of every situation. I can understand why some level of assertiveness is a good thing, but excessive assertiveness is even worse in my view. I strive to have the level of assertiveness which I consider proper, but this level of assertiveness is still considered too low for a man by patriarchal standards.

     I agree, too much assertiveness crosses over into some very bad things. Being in a relationship means making sacrifices, and you may find a woman who wants you to be more assertive than you consider proper. I once took a girl out on a date and I asked her where she wanted to go. Her answer amounted to "you're the man; you decide". I'll admit, I really did not expect that sort of a response.

     Ultimately, the importance of communication is key, but people are oftentimes ineffective at communicating themselves properly. If you are really serious about making it work with a particular woman, I'd suggest trying to assert yourself in different ways and gauging her reaction. Getting a feel for what she wants is key.