Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Ok, so I feel really uncomfortable going here because it takes me back to when I was, like, a horny 17-year-old boy… and because it’s about fashion, which is always sort of a loaded issue but…

In a very cool post on body/mass indexes, working out vs. dieting, and standards of attraction Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon said

“...a lot of women polled still found women like Alba attractive, but 41% said that muscles are never attractive on women. 72% said they don’t think men find muscles on women attractive, and 77% said that they don’t think women find them attractive.”

Read the rest of her excellent post here.

S’cuse me but… this is going to sound like male privilege out the wazoo or something (I promise it’s not) but… but… who gives a crap what women think other women should look like?!?

I ask because it’s certainly the case that women appear to care hugely more about how other women look than men do. And also appear to care hugely more about how other women think they look than how men think they look.

If I was an MRA or something I’d snuffle about how it’s so unfair that Teh Feminists blame men for forcing women into unhealthy diets, uncomfortable shoes, entire toxic waste dumps full of cosmetics and hair products and (worst of all in my opinion anyway) clothes without pockets that… cost two to five times as much to purchase as men’s and two to ten times as much to (dry!) clean. When, as this survey shows, women are full of the harsh towards other women.

Of course I’m not an MRA so I’ll go with stuff Hegel, or Naomi Wolfe, or Susie Orbach and say something about the feminine beauty trap which, like the corresponding masculine worthiness trap is a product of our self-criticism and self-policing in the face of our gendered expectations. And that is sure seems like there’s sort of the opposite of that stupid joke about bears and running shoes where we tell ourselves if we’re going to get the man/woman/whatever of our dreams we can’t just meet the typical non-gendered threshhold of attractiveness to the opposite gender and instead perceive that we have to beat everyone else who might also be interested in them. With the result that we’re more acutely attuned to the nuances of… whatever gender trap is assigned to us than members of the opposite sex are ever likely to be…

...with the result that, ironically, we’re likely to be more judgmental of, and have higher standards for, ourselves and our peers than the prospective partners we’re allegedly competing for. Which is why I think it’s an escalating trap. To the point that, say, women can wind up saying things like “don’t kiss me I just did my hair” and men say things like “I can’t come home now, I’m not earning enough to keep you happy” that are objectively dumb but subjectively make perfect sense to them.

—-

But what I really wanted to say was I think it’s weird that the report would gather statistics on whether other women think buff women are unattractive. Which goes back, I think, to me being gender, and probably cis- and all kinds of other privileged after all. Because when I hear “women are” attractive/unattractive/whatever I automatically append “to men.” As if that was the only criteria that matters. And I’m not sure it’s a good excuse that that really is supposed to be what the whole attractiveness industry is predicated on.

And now after saying that I’m going to add that I think 77% of women are out of their minds if they don’t think men think muscles on women are attractive. It’s as dumb as saying 77% of men think women aren’t interested in men who don’t have… I dunno… high-paying jobs or something. Because I’m pretty sure a heck of a lot fewer than 77% of men think buff women are unattractive. I mean, seriously, I don’t get it.

—-

One more thing: in comment #29 to Amanda’s post La Lubu said: “Women’s clothing—-outside of workout clothes—-doesn’t come in an ‘athletic’ cut the way men’s clothing does.” That part certainly is true. In the past I spent a lot of time doing pool aerobics with athletes recovering from knee, foot, and leg injuries and it’s certainly true that contemporary women’s clothes, ironically, don’t seem to “flatter” fit women’s bodies as well as they do women who aren’t as fit. Except, I guess, in the pool or at the beach.

—-

Things like this make you wonder who invented heterosexuality anyway? I mean, I like being heterosexual and all but wow, for something that’s supposed to be “how nature made us” we end up doing a lot of embarrassing things to ourselves and each other.

Robot-Heart has a cool post that gets back to problem with the whole “myth of male weakness“ ideology

“Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn’t raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist.”

Shakesville

It bears repeating.

I don’t understand the contortions of logic people go through to find reasons why a rape victim is at fault for some other person raping them.

You know what is logical? Blaming the person who decides to rape someone else.

Read the quote in context here.

Once again, the problem with blaming the victim (she must have known that sitting at home in sweatpants watching a movie was asking for it!!!!) isn’t that it absolves the assailant(s) it’s a declaration that men are weak, impulsive, hormonal, dictated to by their organs of reproduction, undisciplined, infantile, base, and governed by their animal nature and an overwhelming, instinctive drive to inseminate.

You know what it is? (You’re not going to like it.) It’s saying that rapists are indistinguishable from all other men. Which created an unholy uproar when Susan Brownmiller or Andrea Dworkin or Mary fucking Daly said it. But which passes not simply without comment but as conventional wisdom whenever someone says “well, she must have been asking for it” or “what did she expect?”

If you’re a man and you hear someone blaming a victim for rape why not take it as a personal slap in the face?

How about saying “no, she didn’t ask for fucking anything — a man who knew exactly what he was doing made the deliberate choice to rape someone he believed he could get the drop on under circumstances he calculated minimized the chance of being brought to justice.” I mean, seriously, every time someone blames the victim they’re letting the rapist slide on the low, low expectations their shitty attitude about men’s incapacity for responsibility creates.

To paraphrase The Elephant Man “men are not animals, they are human beings.” And like all human beings men deliberate, decide, and then act. When anyone gets raped it’s because someone deliberated raping them, decided to rape them, and then acted on their decision to rape them.

Remember: it’s not feminists who believe in blaming the victim. Consequently its not feminists who can be held accountable for society’s predators-from-the-sewers narratives about men.

Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science passes along some fun news about gender, hormones, and “biology is destiny” memes. Questions of accuracy and bias arise in any study, and any news account of a study, but the information to assumption ratio in Yong’s piece is wonderful. Here are his opening paragraphs (emphasis his.)

What do you think a group of women would do if they were given a dose of testosterone before playing a game? Our folk wisdom tells us that they would probably become more aggressive, selfish or antisocial. Well, that’s true… but only if they think they’ve been given testosterone.

If they don’t know whether they’ve been given testosterone or placebo, the hormone actually has the opposite effect to the one most people would expect – it promotes fair play. The belligerent behaviour stereotypically linked to testosterone only surfaces if people think they’ve been given hormone, whether they receive a placebo or not. So strong are the negative connotations linked to testosterone that they can actually overwhelm and reverse the hormone’s actual biological effects.

He said it here.

That’s actually pretty consistent with…

• findings related to testosterone levels in a variety of animals (but not, interestingly, the rats most of the early “confirmation” studies were done on) where aggressive and/or risk-taking behavior is undertaken to elevate testosterone levels in males, not as a result of elevated testosterone.

• findings related to people’s reactions when they’re led to believe they’ve been given (or haven’t been) doses of other behavior-modifying compounds like alcohol and caffeine where for instance, going back at least as far as the 1960s where people are more likely, say, to act drunk when told they’ve been given more alcohol than they thought, or less drunk when told they’ve been given only a small amount.

And I’m inclined to trust the reporter not least because he seems to have done actual analysis reporting instead of regurgitating lurid bits. I’m inclined to trust the researcher because a) he doesn’t seem to be talking about the effect of a hormone on people rather than trying to prove gendered mandates and b) while his subjects were women that appears to be mostly because women respond more consistently and predictably to measured doses of testosterone than do men. (Which would also be consistent with findings that in men behavior changes a lot more in relation to relative rather than absolute amounts.)

I did say trust, though. Since the research appears to be gated behind a commercial firewall I can’t verify. So all I can say is it sounds interesting. And sounds measured. And sounds more like basic reporting on basic science than expectation-driven “just so” stories.

(Via Mackenzie at Geek Feminism Blog.)

A dramatic reading from Galileo, a play by Bertolt Brecht, English version by Charles Laughton. It’s the last scene in the play and not always performed. I don’t know how many people are familiar with the play (lots?) but it very strongly influenced, and now nicely illustrates, my understanding of stereotype and its impact on perception.

Scene 14

Before a little italian customs house early in the morning ANDReA sits upon one of his traveling trunks at the barrier and read Galileo’s book. The window of a small house is still lit, and a big grotesque shadow, like an old witch andher cauldron, falls upon the house wall beyond. Barefoot CHILDREN in rags see it and point to the little house.

CHILDREN (singing):
One, two three four, five, six,
Old Marina is a witch,
At night, on a broomstick she sits
And on the church steeple she spits.

CUSTOMS OFFICER (to ANDREA) [etc…]

Meanwhile a little council of war among the CHILDREN has taken place. ANDREA quietly watches. one of the BOYS pushes forward by the others, creeps up to the little house from which the shadow comes, and takes the jug of milk on the doorstep.

ANDREA (quickly): Whatever are you doing with that milk?
BOY (stopping in mid-movement): She is a witch.

The other CHILDREN run away behind the customs house. One of them shouts “Run, Paolo!”

ANDREA: Hmm! And because she is a witch she mustn’t have milk. Is that the idea?

BOY: Yes.

ANDREA: And how do you know she is a witch?

BOY (points to shadow on house wall): Look!

ANDREA: Oh! I see.

BOY: And she rids on a broomstick at night — and she bewitches the coachman’s horses. My cousin Luigi looked through the hole in the stable roof, that the snowstorm made, and heard the horses coughing something terrible.

ANDREA: Oh! How big was the hole in the stable roof?

BOY: Luigi didn’t tell. Why?

ANDREA: I was asking because maybe the horses got sick because it was cold in the stable. You had better ask Luigi how big that hole is.

BOY: You are not going to say Old Marina isn’t a witch because you can’t.

ANDREA: No, I can’t say she isn’t a witch. A man can’t know about a think he hasn’t looked into, or can he?

BOY: No! But THAT! (He points to the shadow.) She is stirring hellbroth.

ANDREA: Let’s see. Do you want to take a look? i can lift you up.

BOY: you lift me to the window, Mister! (He takes a slingshot out of his pocket.) I can really bash her from there.

ANDREA: Hadn’t we better make sure she is a witch before we shoot? I’ll hold that.

The BOY puts the milk jug down and follows him reluctantly to the window. ANDREA lifts the boy up so that he can look in.

ANDREA: What do you see?

BOY (slowly): Just an old girl cooking porridge.

ANDREA: Oh! Nothing to it then. Now look at her shadow, Paolo.

The BOY looks over his shoulder and back and compares the reality and the shadow.

BOY: The big thing is a soup ladle.

ANDREA: Ah! A ladle! You see, I would have taken it for a broomstick, but I haven’t looked into the matter as you have, Paolo. Here is your sling.

CUSTOMS OFFICER (returning with the CLERK and handing ANDREA his papers): All present and correct. Good luck, sir.

ANDREA goes, reading Galileo’s book. The CLERK starts to bring his baggage after him. The barrier rises. ANDREA passes through, still reading the book. The BOY kics over the milk jug.

BOY (shouting after ANDREA): She is a witch! She is a witch!

ANDREA: You saw with your own eyes: think it over!

The BOY joins the others. They sing:

One, two, three, four, five, six,
Old Marina is a witch.
At night, on a broomstick she sits
And on the church steeple she sits.

The CUSTOMS OFFICERS laugh. ANDREA goes.

Source: Galileo; Copyright 1966 by Eric Bentley, Grove Press ISBN: 0-8021-4050-5; pages 126-129

The Paolo effect is what I had in the back of my mind for yesterdays post, “Jill Filipovic’s Answer to the “No True Scotsfeminist” Fallacy.”

It’s not that the stereotypes are insurmountable — they’re not or else Adrea would have succumbed to the witchcraft over 500 years ago as would we today. But they’re often persistent even in the face of direct counter-evidence.