This is what a feminist looks like...
Oct. 19th, 2012 01:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerI expect most of you will have seen that Margaret Atwood quote that's going around:
“A woman’s worst nightmare? That’s pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.”
And if you're the kind of man to whom that might apply, you ignored it and passed on, or dismissed it as hyperbole, whereas if you're the kind of man like me who would never willingly even step on a woman's toe, you may have had various kinds of negative reaction from vicarious shame and guilt to affronted resentment. I think I went through the whole gamut. Now, though, I'm calmer, and I want to think about this and see where it takes me. Yes, this is another of those posts that may land me neck deep in the soup, but at least this time I'm expecting it.
First off, the usual things that should go without saying but somehow don't; there is no excuse for violence towards women, I reject utterly the thought that there might be, and should I come upon such an incident taking place I will take whatever action seems to me best to stop it. (This may take the form of trying to get the perp to chase me instead by making an annoyingly loud noise or something, but whatever it is I will try it.) Nothing in the following is intended to trivialise or minimise the justified fears of women in a patriarchal culture that still excuses rape, and the "But" that follows signifies merely a different train of thought and no contradiction of the aforegoing. Are we clear? I do hope so.)
But.
The quote (which is really a paraphrase, but it's the best I could find) contrasts a "male friend" and "a group of women," with no indication of who, where or how. There might be a significant difference between the applicability of the two statements depending on such factors. A group of women in Salem Town Jail in 1692 would differ significantly from the Townswomen's Guild of Tunbridge Wells, for instance, and a male friend who is a ninety-three-year-old stockbroker from Boston would differ from a drunken stevedore in a bar on the waterfront of Shanghai.
Again, the two "threats" are of very different types. Society makes a great fuss about murder, and there are lots of laws and things in place intended to prevent such things happening. (They don't work, of course, but we try.) Measures to prevent ordinary people being laughed at are practically non-existent, and many people such as Stephen Fry are diligently agitating to remove even those that do exist. It seems likely to me that if I were to ask a male friend the question, in the course of a relaxing evening with music, good food and a little philosophical discussion, I might well get answer one; whereas if I then ask a group of women, say, in an inner-city refuge for battered women, I would definitely get answer two.
Which is not to say that Ms Atwood is being in any way dishonest; merely that the whole issue of gender-based fear is deeper and more complicated than can be summed up in a soundbite, and that a soundbite such as the above, which promotes the fear while doing nothing to help find ways of resolving the problem, is basically not a lot of use and potentially damaging to the cause.
Men feel threatened by women because, by and large, and allowing for individual variation, women are generally better than men at the things that matter today; smarter, more empathetic, more concerned about important issues, more organised, and more patient and persistent at getting things done; because women in general are better human beings than men are. Women feel threatened by men because, by and large et cetera, men are bigger and stronger than women and more likely to get their fun from hitting things; because women in general are better human beings than men are. It's simply a fact. It wasn't always so, because in more primitive societies the male ability to hit things was more useful. Now, though, it isn't, and we have to manufacture things like war and competitive sports so that the poor things don't feel completely useless. (And then women come in and do that better as well.) Not to feel threatened by it, if you're a man, would be insane. The point is how we react to these threats.
Men can hurt women by hitting them. That's not the only way, but it's the way the male hindbrain always defaults to. Threat? Hit it till it stops moving, then move on. Rape, as has been rightly said, is not about the sex, it's about the power--it's an extraordinarily cruel and nasty way of hitting, of exorcising fear by attacking the thing that symbolises the threat. Once the threat's gone (till the next time), that's it, it's over.
Women can hurt men in a variety of subtle ways over a long period of time; being laughed at is only the simplest and most basic form. Masculinity is a poor and fragile thing, and some of us think it's outlived its usefulness and would be better quietly dumped, if only we could. It can be hurt far more easily with a word or a gesture than with a blow or a cut. And there's the advantage that you can go on doing it, for years if you like. It's possible to get the idea from the Atwood quote that the threat women pose to men is trivial, unimportant. Compared to the threat of violent death or rape, yes, of course it is. But considered against the context in which violent death and rape are exceptional events--from the point of view of an individual, say, who has never encountered such things on a personal level (hi)--to that individual, to such men in general, who would never hit a woman or force themselves upon her, a threat to one's masculinity is far from trivial, and the quote ignores that completely.
I hope that in putting down these semi-coherent wibblings I have not come over as excusing rape or trivialising the important issue of violence against women. I would never and will never do that. On the contrary, I think it might be quotes like this, reducing the issue to a false dichotomy which is a true reflection of neither side, which might make it seem trivial, or easily dismissed as scaremongering and hyperbole.
FINAL THOUGHT: it could be argued that the principal value of the quote is the shock of the final words. To that I would say that in my opinion the concept of "shock value" is practically obsolete. We are surrounded by so much shock value these days it's practically impossible not to be desensitised by it practically to the point of apathy. Everything from comedy to commercials tries to shock us, and it becomes less and less effective every time. If shock value is what the original publisher of the quote was aiming for, I don't think it will work.
Over to you...
“A woman’s worst nightmare? That’s pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.”
And if you're the kind of man to whom that might apply, you ignored it and passed on, or dismissed it as hyperbole, whereas if you're the kind of man like me who would never willingly even step on a woman's toe, you may have had various kinds of negative reaction from vicarious shame and guilt to affronted resentment. I think I went through the whole gamut. Now, though, I'm calmer, and I want to think about this and see where it takes me. Yes, this is another of those posts that may land me neck deep in the soup, but at least this time I'm expecting it.
First off, the usual things that should go without saying but somehow don't; there is no excuse for violence towards women, I reject utterly the thought that there might be, and should I come upon such an incident taking place I will take whatever action seems to me best to stop it. (This may take the form of trying to get the perp to chase me instead by making an annoyingly loud noise or something, but whatever it is I will try it.) Nothing in the following is intended to trivialise or minimise the justified fears of women in a patriarchal culture that still excuses rape, and the "But" that follows signifies merely a different train of thought and no contradiction of the aforegoing. Are we clear? I do hope so.)
But.
The quote (which is really a paraphrase, but it's the best I could find) contrasts a "male friend" and "a group of women," with no indication of who, where or how. There might be a significant difference between the applicability of the two statements depending on such factors. A group of women in Salem Town Jail in 1692 would differ significantly from the Townswomen's Guild of Tunbridge Wells, for instance, and a male friend who is a ninety-three-year-old stockbroker from Boston would differ from a drunken stevedore in a bar on the waterfront of Shanghai.
Again, the two "threats" are of very different types. Society makes a great fuss about murder, and there are lots of laws and things in place intended to prevent such things happening. (They don't work, of course, but we try.) Measures to prevent ordinary people being laughed at are practically non-existent, and many people such as Stephen Fry are diligently agitating to remove even those that do exist. It seems likely to me that if I were to ask a male friend the question, in the course of a relaxing evening with music, good food and a little philosophical discussion, I might well get answer one; whereas if I then ask a group of women, say, in an inner-city refuge for battered women, I would definitely get answer two.
Which is not to say that Ms Atwood is being in any way dishonest; merely that the whole issue of gender-based fear is deeper and more complicated than can be summed up in a soundbite, and that a soundbite such as the above, which promotes the fear while doing nothing to help find ways of resolving the problem, is basically not a lot of use and potentially damaging to the cause.
Men feel threatened by women because, by and large, and allowing for individual variation, women are generally better than men at the things that matter today; smarter, more empathetic, more concerned about important issues, more organised, and more patient and persistent at getting things done; because women in general are better human beings than men are. Women feel threatened by men because, by and large et cetera, men are bigger and stronger than women and more likely to get their fun from hitting things; because women in general are better human beings than men are. It's simply a fact. It wasn't always so, because in more primitive societies the male ability to hit things was more useful. Now, though, it isn't, and we have to manufacture things like war and competitive sports so that the poor things don't feel completely useless. (And then women come in and do that better as well.) Not to feel threatened by it, if you're a man, would be insane. The point is how we react to these threats.
Men can hurt women by hitting them. That's not the only way, but it's the way the male hindbrain always defaults to. Threat? Hit it till it stops moving, then move on. Rape, as has been rightly said, is not about the sex, it's about the power--it's an extraordinarily cruel and nasty way of hitting, of exorcising fear by attacking the thing that symbolises the threat. Once the threat's gone (till the next time), that's it, it's over.
Women can hurt men in a variety of subtle ways over a long period of time; being laughed at is only the simplest and most basic form. Masculinity is a poor and fragile thing, and some of us think it's outlived its usefulness and would be better quietly dumped, if only we could. It can be hurt far more easily with a word or a gesture than with a blow or a cut. And there's the advantage that you can go on doing it, for years if you like. It's possible to get the idea from the Atwood quote that the threat women pose to men is trivial, unimportant. Compared to the threat of violent death or rape, yes, of course it is. But considered against the context in which violent death and rape are exceptional events--from the point of view of an individual, say, who has never encountered such things on a personal level (hi)--to that individual, to such men in general, who would never hit a woman or force themselves upon her, a threat to one's masculinity is far from trivial, and the quote ignores that completely.
I hope that in putting down these semi-coherent wibblings I have not come over as excusing rape or trivialising the important issue of violence against women. I would never and will never do that. On the contrary, I think it might be quotes like this, reducing the issue to a false dichotomy which is a true reflection of neither side, which might make it seem trivial, or easily dismissed as scaremongering and hyperbole.
FINAL THOUGHT: it could be argued that the principal value of the quote is the shock of the final words. To that I would say that in my opinion the concept of "shock value" is practically obsolete. We are surrounded by so much shock value these days it's practically impossible not to be desensitised by it practically to the point of apathy. Everything from comedy to commercials tries to shock us, and it becomes less and less effective every time. If shock value is what the original publisher of the quote was aiming for, I don't think it will work.
Over to you...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 12:44 pm (UTC)I can confirm, by the way, that as a woman in a nice, civilised area, with a nice, civilised job, and friends who, like you, would never dream of harming anyone, of any gender, I'm still a little uneasy about dark lonely car-parks because of the possible threat of a violent attack, from a hypothetical attacker who I always visualise as male. That may say more about my psychology than it does about actual threat probabilities, but I'm not the sort to think of myself as a victim, so there's an "even someone like me" in that statement. (The mental "what if" story goes on to just how I'd arrange for the attacker to die).
I['m still intrigued by this idea of men finding women specifically to be a threat. How does being beaten at something by a woman differ from being beaten at it by a man? Beaten is beaten, surely? I can see that being beaten into second place is a threat, because there's no prizes for coming second, but why does it matter who did it?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:06 pm (UTC)It's kind of like the joke about the two hunters, the lion and the running shoes. Being beaten by a man is being outrun by the other hunter. Being beaten by a woman is when the lion gets you. That's not an entirely satisfactory answer, but it's the best I can do when the soup's boiling over.:)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 02:36 pm (UTC)Solid, concrete example: a couple of years back, I was job-hunting. I'm a programmer, in the heavy-weight non-fluffy side of things - big databases, not front-end graphics. It's an extremely male-dominated field.
I applied for jobs. I got beaten into second place. In a few cases, I knew the gender of the person who'd beaten me, and they were usually male - but I was never even interested in their gender, much less resenting either gender because of it. That factor never entered into it. They beat me, in all cases, because they were better than me. I have no interest in whether they were male, female, or transgender pink octupi from Mars.
(If I'd had any suspicion than the *interviewer* was judging things on gender, that would have been another matter, and I'd have resented *them*. But I never did.)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:31 pm (UTC)If a woman does it on the other hand... well, since women axiomatically can't be stronger than a real man, losing to one means you are not a real man. Identity crisis time. At least unless you can resolve it by one of the traditional methods, such as trivializing the entire thing ("being good at X doesn't matter anyway") or bullying the woman into backing off...
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:43 pm (UTC)I'm assuming, by the way, that the "beaten" is at something that matters, like getting a job, not at arm-wrestling.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-21 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 12:48 pm (UTC)I will argue that there is a huge difference between a man beating up another man in the street and a man beating up a woman. The difference is inferred power. And, to some extent, it doesn't matter whither those actual killings take place between men and women. It's just that a patriarchal society says that I shouldn't walk home on my own, I shouldn't wear a dress above the knee, I shouldn't wear anything low cut because that could result in my murder. The fact that is there, regardless of anything that actually happens to me, is threat enough.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 03:46 pm (UTC)The blame-the-victim, keep-women-in-their-place, she-was-asking-for-it, virgin-or-whore mentality;
And the real-as-breast-cancer risk of being beaten, raped, or killed that women face every day in this society.
Granted, the two are often conflated by the blame-the-victim crowd, but I think they are more usefully discussed separately.
When I am out alone, I am not fearful but alert and cautious. This is not because of social programming, but because of social reality. It is because I know women who have been raped in stairwells and carparks. It is because I myself have been asaulted, in a place that was upscale and seemed safe. It is because I want to live, and would prefer to avoid being attacked again.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 03:54 pm (UTC)But that's not ok. That shouldn't be how it is. You shouldn't have to be cautious. Why should it be you who's taking steps to avoid being attacked when it should be your attacker taking steps to not attack you?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 04:19 pm (UTC)But the society in which I live is the society in which I live, not the kinder and gentler and fairer place of feminist theory.
Essentially, I am living in a war zone. I would prefer it were not, but in the meantime, I also would prefer not to become a casualty.
If you prefer a gentler metaphor -- though, considering the casualty rates, I think that war is apt -- consider a pedestran crossing the street. A cautious pedestrian looks both ways, even on a one way street, and checks to be sure the cars have stopped, even though the light is red. Those actions aren't mandatory, and wouldn't be needful if all drivers were law-abiding, but they do reduce actual risk.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:36 pm (UTC)Consider, however, the fact that traditional masculinity is largely illusory, predicated on hate and contempt (because being a capital-letters real man is all about NOT being like a woman, NOT being like a gay man and so forth) and pretty ridiculous, and that most men would probably be better off trying to build their lives on something else.
Women, on the other hand, would be better off if we DIDN'T have to construct any part of our lives around the idea that our lives, dignity and sexual freedom are under constant threat.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-21 02:42 am (UTC)Actually, wait, and (c): that a man's entire worth is dependent on him being a Real Man.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:40 pm (UTC)I've seen the fear of getting laughed at/fear of getting killed quote attributed to a college survey, but that's all the detail I've got.
Just a notion, but I've wondered if part of sexism isn't just that women are probably pushed to be more cautious than they need to be, but also that men are pushed to not be as cautious as they should be.
[1] Self-defense isn't an unlimited license, of course.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 01:45 pm (UTC)If you can, listen to Woman's Hour on the iPlayer - today's had a feature about the "Pimps and Hos" student party being organised in Manchester, and it was an intelligent and interesting discussion - particularly in what it revealed in the attitudes of young men and of the party organisers. I'd like to have heard from a larger sample of the male student population, but I was sadly unsurprised by their attitudes.
*goes back to watching everyone else have brains*
no subject
Date: 2012-10-19 03:32 pm (UTC)As for your "harm women do to men," emotional abuse of women by men is also very common, as is emotional abuse within same-sex relationships. For that matter, I think that women in general are subject to more emotional abuse than men when just walking down the street.