They are bad because you can't dictate what a person should or shouldn't do based on their gender. "Oh, you're a woman, you shouldn't wear pants, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" is pretty outdated form of thinking...
I'm not dictating anything. I do have expectations about how people should behave however. If someone breaks those expectations, I of course take note of it, but it's not like I'm stopping anyone from breaking my expectations.
Men should be like ____, and women should be like _____.. How about we each be ourselves instead? We're individuals and not members of some sort of a borg hive mind, after all.
Yes, we are all individuals (I'm not!), and we are free to do as we please. However, there are expectations in society as to how you should behave.
Nobody argues that all such expectations are bad, but it seems certain people here have problems with expectations that are different for men and women. I think there should be different expectations, precisely because we are different biologically. I will never treat a woman like a man, or a man like a woman. I don't think the vast majority of women not the vast majority of men would want that.
But sure, do whatever you like. I'm not gonna stop you - but I might not be supporting you either.
Well, firstly, the rules are not nearly as strict as we like to think; European Christian culture simply holds to a particularly straight-laced form of the gender binary, one which is not universally echoed- some societies traditionally recognise third gendered, bi-gendered, transgendered or androgynous people, while others are gynofocal (albeit rarely, if ever, matriarchal). European (and European-derived) culture, you see, is in no way the base template for human society, simply a single, rather dull manifestation. The rather hateful little binary you prescribe is certainly a recurring feature, yes, but it is not the absolute which you suggest, either in terms of potential nor in actuality.
First of all, I would like you to explain how treating men and women differently is "hateful".
Secondly, I know I'm not a Dachs, but I do consider myself to have a fair understanding of history. I have no idea how you could infer that I was only thinking of European societies from those paragraphs, as I was clearly referring to the whole world throughout the text. Please refrain from being condescending and ridiculing. That being said, even though I did try to come up with some, I was, and still am, at a loss to come up with any societies that match the emboldened part of your statement. Since you apparently know of such cultures, I would appreciate if you would educate me on some of them.
Secondly, since when was traditional precedent equivalent to absolute legitimacy? Traditional precedent would maintain despotism, aristocracy, slavery, and all manner of oppressive practices which, quite rightly, we now abhor. Why are the visible tyrannies of barbarity to be so openly scorned, but the invisible ones stubbornly retained?
Traditional precedent does not in itself give legitimacy of course. My point was that if several different methods are tried out, and one seems to be the most successful, then it can be argued that that method is the best one.
I do not see different standards for the sexes as a form of tyranny, and anyone is free to break the standards, I am free to say what I think about it, and we are all free to accept the consequences.
And how the hell you claim that something is invisible when you obviously see it, and complain when others see it in a different way, I have no idea.
And, finally, why are you so ready to deny the individual in favour of the collective? Why do you scorn individual fulfilment in favour of what is, essentially, a caste system based on what goolies you happen to have been born with? If the Enlightenment gave us one thing, it was the firm knowledge that the individual matters, and that society exists as a collective of individuals. Why so quick to forget this now that you find yourself in a position of social privilege?
A caste system is acceptable if there are real differences between the castes. I recognise that there are inherent differences between men and women, and as such, I think different standards for men and women is the right position to take.
And just like anyone is free to break any convention in society, so is anyone free to break these conventions. Anyone who breaks conventions has to deal with the consequences of course, whether they are legal or simply social.
And finally, I'm pretty tired of people like you talking about men being "privileged" all the time. That is simply not true. There are different standards, and thus different rights/privileges and duties for each sex. For men, I did point out that they are expected to be the provider, to be the ones to take responsibility, to be strong, to defend their family and society, to risk - or even sacrifice - their lives when needed. Talk about privilege.
Oh, and noting that you're from the UK, you should be happy, as it seems your compatriots may soon make sure men are the only sex with the privilege to go to prison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html
Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.
New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should bear these matters in mind.
The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.
When I said he's missing the dynamic, I meant that he failed to recognise it; it was, of course, painfully blatant. You're also right that the greater presence of sex in modern society means that women are often expected to adopt traditional Whorish behaviour, but they are still, as the example reflects, expected to maintain a properly Madonnaish detachment. It doesn't challenge the basic problem that the legitimate sexual agency of women is still denied, and full sexual agency denigrated as "slutty" should it appear.
It's not that simple.
Let me outline some basics:
1. By nature, most women want to be provided for or at least have the extra economic security a man can provide.
2. By nature, most men want sex. Furthermore, men value sex with a non-promiscuous woman more than with a promiscuous woman, assuming they're equal in other aspects.
3. Thus, most women are best served by appearing less promiscuous to make a man stay with them, and by trying to influence other women to be less promiscuous to make the option of leaving her less desirable for a man.
If you want to challenge (1) or (2), go ahead. I'll be out watching for flying pigs. If you accept (1) and (2), but think (3) does not follow, I would like to hear why.
The "Nice guy/Jerk" thing really isn't equivalent to the Maddona/Whore dynamic, because it describes, to an extent, the application of the Alpha/Beta dynamic to male-female relationships, rather than the dynamic itself, specifically, how Alphas and Betas, respectively, are expected to obtain the Madonna (and, in the short term, the Whore). The Alpha/Beta and Madonna/Whore dynamics are within each gender, rather than between genders. (It should also be noted that the Alpha/Beta dynamic is rather less strictly determined than the Madonna/Whore dynamic, so the Nice guy/Jerk dichotomy really isn't as binary as it is made to appear.)
Also, the Alpha/Beta dynamic does not merely refer to the "mating game", but to society in general. It's just that the Madonna/Whore dynamic reduces women to the pure sexually, and so the Alpha/Beta dynamic is only able to parallel them in that regard. It should also be noted that, in this context, it's used to refer to a specific gender-based in-group/out-group dynamic, rather than a more specific dominance/subservience relationship between individuals (although that is obviously one of it's manifestations).
You are mixing two different sets of Alpha/Beta here. One is the Alpha/Beta dynamic between men as to who is the leader and who is the follower. That is outside of this discussion.
The other is the Alpha/Beta categories of men when it comes to sexual attraction. In their most perverse forms, these two categories become the Jerk/Nice guy. Women are attracted to the Alphas, and not the Betas. The way for Alphas and Betas to get a girl is the same, its only that the Alpha does it correctly, the Beta doesn't. Outside of the mating game, it doesn't matter if a guy is sexually Alpha or Beta.
With no rules (the opposition to jerks, the slut-shaming, etc.), in its most exaggerated form, we end up with all women trying to be closer to the Whore, while only having sex with the Jerk who has no reason to commit at all, and the Nice guy getting no sex (or even commitment). While that is a great time for the Jerk, and great some of the time for each woman, that is not a healthy society.
The problem with this is that it conflates any female assertion of sexuality as sexual promiscuity and, society being what it is, uses this as a basis of moral condemnation. You're making the leap from "revealing clothing" to "lacking proper womanly morals", which, again, denies women legitimate sexual agency. It's back to the old notion that sex is something men do, and that women experience, and that any woman who plays an active role in intercourse (or, indeed, a man who plays a passive one) is acting against their proper gender type.
Well, to be fair, making a leap from clothing to what kind of the wearer is, isn't exactly limited to the sexual viewpoint. Do you think this is wrong in general, or just when it comes to judging women's sexual morals from clothing?
I disagree that sex is something men do, and women experience. Sex is something both sexes do, but that men must work harder to achieve than women, and, biologically speaking, that the goal of getting sex is more valuable (as in rarer or harder to achieve) to men than to women.
"Misogyny" is properly understood as contempt, rather than hate, which is merely a manifestation of contempt, and referring to sexually active women as "sluts" most certainly constitutes contempt. That's not to say that any given usage represents a misogynistic speaker, but it certainly represents misogynistic activity, and a speaker who is insufficiently aware of this fact.
Well, I don't have contempt for women, but if your definition of misogyny means "contempt for women who are sexually active", I'll try and remember that.
For the record:
- A "slut" is a woman with relatively lower standards for who she will sleep with and who thus sleeps with relatively more men.
- A "whore" is a woman who sleeps with men for money.
I don't need to put any moral value into these. I will note that a slut is great if I want sex, but I'm less likely to want a relationship with her. The same goes for a whore of course, but instead of time and money to socialize, in that case one just needs money.
In terms of formal legal privilege? True enough, despite the complaints of so many men. In terms of social privilege? Don't make me laugh.
Alright, refresh my memory. Tell me what social privileges does men have that women don't have?
I can then try to match you with some that women have and men don't.
That's a tough one. I certainly wish I hadn't had sex with as many of them as I did, but if I hadn't had sex with at least some of them I mightn't have realised what I was missing. I more regret not sticking with the "long-term" girls longer than I do having sex with the "short-term" girls.
So you don't consider the sleeping around to be a problem, merely that it took time away from staying with specific girls you were more attracted to.
Only men are not less likely to marry a 'madonna' after sex with a 'whore'. They are much more able to separate sex from emotion, and many men cheat, but of these a vast majority really would prefer to be with their wives. The 'madonna' does not lose her man entirely if 'whores' exist: she just loses complete control of his sexual life. Even if the man remains faithful, the easy access that surrounds him puts pressure on her.
Well, I'll admit that I'm assuming in my post that men are honourable and don't cheat. And cheating isn't exactly accepted, neither by women not society. So a man who would still want to have sex with lots of women is better off outside of marriage.
Very true- in both the Alpha/Beta and Madonna/Whore dynamics, membership of the favoured group must be constantly reaffirmed in opposition to others, which means the constant assertion of power other anther (although, in the M/W case, this power is gained indirectly, through men).
Of course they get their sexual value indirectly from men - that is precisely why there is a mating game. Conversely, it is not men who decide who is sexually Alpha and Beta. That decision lies with the women they are trying to game. This is the whole concept of a sexually dimorphic specie: Each sex is trying to impress/please the opposite sex!
An interesting point. There's certainly a discussion to be had about this issue, but it may just suffice here if we agree that women (hell, people) should not be obliged to adhere to standards of appearance which they do not find fulfilling, in whatever direction).
You think there should be no standard to adhere to when it comes to clothing? You see no problem in going to a business meeting and the man greeting you is wearing sweatpants and a dirty t-shirt?
True enough- when the dichotomy has been so deeply internalised- and for women, this is far more the case than men- it can sometimes be hard for people to break out of it, which is why it so important to publicly recognise this sort of thing, so we don't just default to it. Thank god for sex-positives and the Third Wave, that's all I can say.
Sure - that means much easier and much more free sex for all the Alphas.
It's not a good thing for society as a whole. Nor do I think it is good for most women in the longer perspective.
But whatever. I get free sex.
Additionally, because the active role is the traditionally masculine one, many men find being pursued in this manner as emasculating, and so that kind of female assertiveness is far more likely to meet a negative reaction than the corresponding male assertiveness. In terms of social prescriptions, that may even be a large factor, given how deeply invested so many men are in both their privilege over women, and the public image of masculinity which affirms Alpha status. While playing the active role is seen as inappropriately masculine for a woman, playing the passive is seen as inappropriately feminine for a woman, and men are more self-policing and quicker punish in regards to that behaviour (especially given that, these days, many people will at least theoretically support women adopting a degree of "masculine" behaviour- masculinity is traditionally power, so female masculinity is empowering, which is dimly understood to be desirable- while the male adoption of "feminine" behaviour is seen as necessarily dis-empowering).
I have no problem with a woman asking me out. But traditionally women have the social privilege of being the one who is being asked, and is thus free to accept or decline. Taking on the role of the one who is asking, and revealing ones interest, and risking humiliation from a decline, is not something most women wants to do. But I think a lot of men would like to not having to do it.
If that was true, I'd be explaining this a hell of a lot better.
Nah, you're already doing a pretty good job of saying whatever such people say. Don't think it would have made much difference.
I don't find their arguments any better either, and I really don't put any trust into the word of an academic of "Women's studies" anyway. (Nor in most humanities for that matter, but that's digressing.)
I'm not sure how one would go about arguing that- it seems to invoke a very essentialist model of gender, with apparent reference to biology, and I can't really imagine what base, biological cause women would have for collectively self-policing their sexuality. After all, the whole dynamic is a competition for male approval, so, unlike the Alpha/Beta dynamic, it's hard to characterise it as a natural, self-interested power struggle. (Certainly, while the Alpha/Male dynamic is present in our closest ape ancestors, the Madonna/Whore is most certainly not.)
I know I said this previously in my post, but I'll repeat myself just in case.
a)
The biological reason for women to shame other women into being less promiscuous is:
1. By nature, most women want to be provided for or at least have the extra economic security a man can provide.
2. By nature, most men want sex. Furthermore, men value sex with a non-promiscuous woman more than with a promiscuous woman, assuming they're equal in other aspects.
3. Thus, most women are best served by appearing less promiscuous to make a man stay with them, and by trying to influence other women to be less promiscuous to make the option of leaving her less desirable for a man.
b)
The sexual Alpha/Beta categorisation is different from the male hierarchy Alpha/Beta categorisation. And while they may be correlated, that is not by causation.
c)
Men are grouped into the sexual Alpha/Beta categories by women. While you can claim the Madonna/Whore dynamic is a competition for male approval, you must recognise that there is also a competition between men for female approval. This dynamic/power struggle is what we refer to as the mating game. Each sex is trying to impress/please the opposite sex! It is not wrong in any way, it is simply natural.
It's not that they are "brainwashed fools", but that they have internalised the misogynistic standards of society to such an extent that those values become their own. [...]
Give me a break. You really think that if 1000 men and 1000 women suddenly materialized somewhere, that the men would come together and agree that they would not like the women to be promiscuous???
Women have a vested, biological interest in making men stay with them. That is the reason behind this whole behaviour!
[...]
Also, I'm sceptical of the "women want love, men want sex" tradition [...]
Both sexes want love, that's not the point. The right difference to point out is: "Women want material support, men want sex".
After all, from an evolutionary standpoint, it also benefits men to care for a single mate and brood, so as to maximise the attention he can give and best ensure the success of his offspring. The harem has always been the habit of the upper classes, who's material privilege- not least the ability to delegate child-rearing to their social subordinates- allows such things.
You're only considering one male mating strategy here.
While it is true that one effective male mating strategy is to have offspring with a female and then stay around to support the female and her offspring with his resources, to make sure his offspring grows up.
Another, and equally effective, mating strategy, is to mate with lots of females and have many offspring, but not squandering his resources on any one. Simply by numbers, he is bound to have at least several of his offspring grow up.
While for females, there is only one possible strategy: Having her offspring and nurturing them until they grow up. This is of course easier done with a male to help support her and the offspring.
As such, men don't need to stay around, women have to. Thus, women were bound to develop ways of making a man stay with them and their kids. Since men can easily get enough grown kids by simply sleeping around enough, a possible way of making the man stay is to make sure there is no other women offering him sex.
See, now, that's a strawman, and a rather grand one at that. I never once used the term of referenced the concept of an "underclass" (it doesn't even make sense in this context, now or historically), my comments have been about social and cultural constructs, not formal or legal inequalities, I repeatedly addressed the fact that competition with each gender is a major factor in sustaining these constructs, and I have been primarily attempting to examine these constructs and discuss how they effect us (men and women), rather than to engage in anything so patronising as liberating the poor, oppressed wimmens from the evil he-man conspiracy.
Honestly, it's been the third-wave for a good twenty years now. If you can't keep up, leave me be!
When you refer to women being less privileged than men, you ARE claiming they are an "underclass". If you want to change your stance to say that women (and men) are "different-class", then go ahead.
(I hate the word "slut". As far as I am concerned it denotes a woman who puts out to everyone else, except the one who employs that description.)
I still think a good definition for a slut is a woman who has lower relative standards in what men she will sleep with than is common in her culture.