When Men Attack
Jun. 16th, 2011 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deathpixieSo, this article by Scott Adams is doing the rounds of my various online networks. It's fairly short, but in essence, what it's saying, is that society punishes men for being "what they are" when they are sexually offensive, instead of acknowledging that men are apparently "unrestrained horny animals" (Adams' quote, not mine).
There's plenty being said about the male privilege of it all, but something that struck me, and which strikes me about the justification for encouraging women to dress like nuns when they're out in public, is the assumption that men can't control their sexually-urged behaviour. And I don't know about you, but for the men who read my journal, isn't that hugely insulting? Rather than being considered a rational being in charge of your own actions, this excuse basically says men are no better than animals - I know some radical feminists would possibly agree with that, but seriously, folks, this is just boggling.
It's also really insidious. I remember, back when I was a teenager, being told not to get a boy too overexcited, since it wasn't fair on them. Fair, how? Are teenaged boys so completely driven by their penises that they can't be expected to control themselves? I know there's plenty of jokes to that effect, but honestly, would you really hold someone to that? Would you say to your teenaged daughter "it's okay to hatchet your brother to death because when you have your period, you can't control yourself". Or to a pregnant woman, "we're going to fire you, because pregnant women are just a stew of hormones and it's established that they can't possibly think with all that going on." Of course not. So why the hell is "men are full of testosterone" being used as justification for them not being able to restrain themselves? And why do we encourage this myth?
I remember reading something the other day, related to the Jezebel article on being harrassed on the street and that cartoon that was going around about women being told to smile by men on the street (I can't find the link atm), where someone was saying something along the lines of "all women are in some degree of fear when in the company of men." I have to admit, and it won't make me popular, I find that statement profoundly insulting and disturbing. Insulting because I have always had male friends and I have never been afraid in their company, and the implication that I should have been is just so wrong to me on so many levels. Disturbing because there's an increasing perception of men as uncontrolled sexual animals, who can't possibly restrain themselves under any circumstances and thus women should always be on their guard. I don't deny that in rape statistics, men are the predominant offenders, I'm not saying that some men aren't potentially dangerous or that you shouldn't be cautious in certain situations. But I am saying that by treating all men as potential offenders basically relegates all women into the role of potential victims, and how the hell are we supposed to function as a society? How are we ever supposed to trust anyone?
It all comes down to personal responsibility. We can control ourselves - we are, after all, not just animals rutting in heat.
There's plenty being said about the male privilege of it all, but something that struck me, and which strikes me about the justification for encouraging women to dress like nuns when they're out in public, is the assumption that men can't control their sexually-urged behaviour. And I don't know about you, but for the men who read my journal, isn't that hugely insulting? Rather than being considered a rational being in charge of your own actions, this excuse basically says men are no better than animals - I know some radical feminists would possibly agree with that, but seriously, folks, this is just boggling.
It's also really insidious. I remember, back when I was a teenager, being told not to get a boy too overexcited, since it wasn't fair on them. Fair, how? Are teenaged boys so completely driven by their penises that they can't be expected to control themselves? I know there's plenty of jokes to that effect, but honestly, would you really hold someone to that? Would you say to your teenaged daughter "it's okay to hatchet your brother to death because when you have your period, you can't control yourself". Or to a pregnant woman, "we're going to fire you, because pregnant women are just a stew of hormones and it's established that they can't possibly think with all that going on." Of course not. So why the hell is "men are full of testosterone" being used as justification for them not being able to restrain themselves? And why do we encourage this myth?
I remember reading something the other day, related to the Jezebel article on being harrassed on the street and that cartoon that was going around about women being told to smile by men on the street (I can't find the link atm), where someone was saying something along the lines of "all women are in some degree of fear when in the company of men." I have to admit, and it won't make me popular, I find that statement profoundly insulting and disturbing. Insulting because I have always had male friends and I have never been afraid in their company, and the implication that I should have been is just so wrong to me on so many levels. Disturbing because there's an increasing perception of men as uncontrolled sexual animals, who can't possibly restrain themselves under any circumstances and thus women should always be on their guard. I don't deny that in rape statistics, men are the predominant offenders, I'm not saying that some men aren't potentially dangerous or that you shouldn't be cautious in certain situations. But I am saying that by treating all men as potential offenders basically relegates all women into the role of potential victims, and how the hell are we supposed to function as a society? How are we ever supposed to trust anyone?
It all comes down to personal responsibility. We can control ourselves - we are, after all, not just animals rutting in heat.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 08:52 pm (UTC)(I won't even start on the "all women are in some degree of fear when in the company of men." thing because it'll turn into a rant and I need to not be angry today)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 12:57 am (UTC)Every time I see this suggestion that society punishes men for "manly" behavior I can't help but notice that, at every turning point in the development of human civilization, men were included in those meetings. Men undeniably had a major role in shaping this world that supposedly hates and fears them and won't let them ejaculate wherever they like.
I'll go along with the idea that men have urges that don't fit into modern culture, but that's because it's modern culture and it's incompatible with loping about like a bonobo chimpanzee. I can't just punch anybody I want, but I also don't have to sleep in a cave or track a wounded deer for three days. I'm satisfied with the trade-off.
I remember, back when I was a teenager, being told not to get a boy too overexcited, since it wasn't fair on them. Fair, how?
I assume the intended meaning was "it's not fair to provoke a boy into committing a felony," which is horseshit, yeah.
On the other hand, my parents keep the dog's leash on a coatrack next to the door, and if you so much as touch that leash, you have to take him for a walk because he's already so excited he can't stand it. It's not like my dog is gonna get pissed and bite me, but it's "not fair" to mess with him like that. I think this stimulus response is a lot closer to horny boys than, say, taunting a grizzly bear until it mauls you. They can control their sexual urges, but they're not exactly looking for a chance to test that, y'know?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 01:35 am (UTC)I think the intention of this was probably a mix of "'blue balls' are painful and masturbation is a sin". Not that boys can't control themselves, but if quote-unquote you get them excited, it's "not fair" to leave them in the lurch. Which is (a) silly, because they can go wank if they have to (that's where the cultural objection to masturbation causes problems), and (b) it's my understanding that teenage boys get hard-ons from looking at clouds and apple pie. And of course, it puts the onus all on the girls for "getting them excited" in the first place as opposed to him getting himself excited over her.
Anyway, Scott Adams is full of shit, but you knew that. The Sim-virus strikes again...