Masculinity is founded on…

the idea that men are rights-bearing persons and women are second-class citizens only fit to be protected by men or subordinate to them.

Feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky says the difference is between healthy eroticism and rituals rooted in toxic ideas about masculinity.

They ultimately see femininity as “in need of domination”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/better_life_lab/2017/11/29/men_aren_t_monsters_the_problem_is_toxic_masculinity.html

Advertisements

Having social power inhibits empathy

“Our lab has found that high-power people (say, the president or members of the numerical majority) are more likely to misinterpret nonverbal behavior. The experience of having power makes us less accurate in reading suffering on the faces of strangers and emotions in static photos of facial expressions. Powerful people are less able to take the perspective of others; they’re quicker to confuse friendliness with flirtatiousness. This is the empathy deficit of people in power, one found in many kinds of studies.”

“There is some evidence from Princeton’s Susan Fiske and Penn State’s Theresa Vescio that high-power people, in not attending carefully to others, are more likely to stereotype others, and more likely to miss individual nuances in behavior. This means that some white-majority football fans may be falling victim to the stereotype of African Americans—particularly large, well-muscled, pro football players—as violent and aggressive. In fact, as we’ve discussed, kneeling is actually the opposite of an aggressive signal.”

 

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_psychology_of_taking_a_knee?utm_source=Greater+Good+Science+Center&utm_campaign=36ff872c0e-GG_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5ae73e326e-36ff872c0e-51896543

quick thought

a girl on tinder flaunting that she’s available but WONT sleep with YOU cause she’s out of your league. man takes that as a slight and wants to reassert his worth by taking her down a peg. sending something aggressive and objectifying. what is that imperative? I am admitting that i thought about wanting to take down what you can’t have, like a tiger… what, stalking and catching? idk why i imagined oh- wait its p much gone. anyways, i thought of like, what if in “ancestral times” men chased and caught and raped women as default and that’s that imperative. i forgot the little connection in between. something along the notion of “taming the wild beast” being something primal…

okay. so buss and baumeister are rooting in sexual economics as their social theory to why our brains would do things like rape.

Toxic Masculinity

Wah wah what about toxic femininity?

Okay but seriously. The first violent act society asks men to do is to severe themselves from their emotions and vulnerability, that’s toxic masculinity. What would toxic femininity look like? Participating in one’s own dehumanization based on gender. The forced performance of femininity? But I definitely think participating in one’s own dehumanization, including self martyrdom for maleness, valuing yourself only for your sex appeal- excesses of “female ego” as described by RB in “competing for love” paper. I agree that the eating disorders women suffer are a result of their competition. But not evolutionary competition, societal competition. Patriarchy tells women their primary value is sex appeal, their use for men. Women operate within that ideology, and yes, compete using cultural shit like makeup and fashion to decorate themselves and diet extremely to meet “perfection” which is waht we demand from women in our societies.

 

Sex Economics

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/10/baumeister-and-vohr-build-market-for.html

The idea that we predominantly treat sex as though it’s a marketplace is just a theoretical construct, an assumption.

Their theory of economics and transactions within a sexual marketplace doesn’t parallel the theory of the labor market. The fact that both parties are at least somewhat motivated by sexual desire, that mutuality, doesn’t fit in with how exchanges and transactions are usually conceptualized.

In sex, both parties are demanding and supplying at the same time. In economic transactions those are mutually exclusive, independent positions.

It’s quite telling that Baumeister and Vohs use the idea of men having higher sex drives as what puts men and women on different sides of the bargaining table of sex transactions. If you’re going to think about people’s costs and benefits for a sex transaction, the difference in COST of production of sex for women is a major factor. But they say the difference is in the DEMAND being stronger for the product than the demand the “producers” have for their own product? Stupid.

It’s like, yes, cultural practices and ideologies are what has spread through generations. But that’s cultural evolution, social forces. Our genetic code would not have changed quickly enough to account for humans in the past several centuries. Millions and millions of years would be needed and i just don’t buy that those “ancient” things are more responsible than historical sociocultural things.

ALSO. Evolutionarily… men didn’t have viagra. They had a childbearing wall too, just with more flexibility and sure, later in life deadline. So this complicates the investment thing.

Sexual strategies related to investment? Yes, that’s D Bss. Baumeister describes evo psych’s approach to sexuality as resting on “reproductive contingencies.” (Competing for love paper)

The focus of sexual economics theory applies the logic and principles of economic marketplaces to the onset of sexual intercourse among heterosexual couples. The core idea is that women are the sellers and men are the buyers. This starts with the abundant evidence that ‘‘everywhere sex is understood to be something females have that males want” (Symons, 1979, p. 253).”

BUT that rests on the assumption that women DON’T want the sex men have, and that’s patently false. Just because men want what women have more than women want what men have, doesn’t mean the “buyers and sellers” are so easily determined, black and white like that.

Hence sexual economics theory begins with the assumption that female sexuality has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not.

IDK about this. Male sexuality has zero exchange value to heterosexual women? Sex is a domain of life, it’s part of biology, sociology… something LIFE AND SOCIAL. It’s the 3rd part of the human condition– basic survival needs, love, and sex. All three include the body, mind, soul. Spirit. Whatever makes us human.

They go on to say “Men cannot trade sex for other benefits” so is this something that uniquely women can do? I feel like this is a reasonable argument. I need evidence of the contrary! I somehow feel this is related to the assumption that “women have the power” (Because the man typically wants sex more than the woman, she has a power advantage. According to the ‘‘principle of least interest,” the person who desires something less has greater control and can demand that the other (more desirous) person sweeten the deal by offering additional incentives or concessions (Waller & Hill, 1951).) But I’m not sure how. I just feel like these assumptions rest on the fact that we live in an even playing field, where women have as much opportunity to be buyers or demanders. I feel like that patriarchy means women have been subjugated, and therefore never allowed the chance to help shape the marketplace? Not sure.

Also, women have learned through culture that their value to men is their sex. Does the current sexual landscape have more to do with the fact that men’s sexuality doesn’t have exchange value the way women’s does, or that men have valued women for their sex only and men, being the owners and operators of society, have always been valued as full human people to women. If our society tells us men do things and women are looked at, and have a primary purpose to please men, then of course we have a sexual “marketplace” if that’s what you want to call it. I call if a sexual landscape that is the product of a long running, deeply rooted patriarchal society in which women have only recently (relatively speaking) begun scratching and clawing to gain equal footing. 

RB would probably say that if women NATURALLY had stronger sex drives, maybe they would have started to run society. Idk. Based on the book that the link above reviews.

i just dont view sex as a [limited] resource. maybe i do view it as a resource but a renewable one- like energy, love, creativity, art….

“Evidence suggests that many women’s sexual desire is limited to begin with and drops off sharply as soon as she settles into a committed relationship (e.g., Arndt, 2009; Baumeister et al., 2001; Hakim, 2015; Kontula, 2015). We shall return to this problem later.”

you’re fucking blind. sorry your masculinity so fragile

“It should hardly be controversial that women compete to look sexually attractive to men. Women have long sought to use clothing, jewelry, and makeup to enhance their attractiveness. They also select clothing that shows off their bodies, in order to attract men. In a field study at a disco, Grammer, Renninger, and Fischer (2004) found that the more motivated women were in terms of seeking sexual partners, the more skin they displayed. They noted that women were aware of altering their garb for purposes of attracting men. Durante, Li, and Haselton (2008) found that women showed up to the laboratory wearing more sexually revealing clothing when they were close to the most fertile segment of the menstrual cycle (when presumably the biological impetus to compete for”

Okay but we live in a society in which women are primarily valued for and judged by their sexual appeal based on hetero male criteria. ANd you’re forgetting all about the sociocultural norms that come from patriarchal capitalism for these things. Of course they would probaby take the view that the norms we have must be here for a “naturally occuring reason” a la, if things were meant to be different, they would be. Ugh. Power corrupts what is the natural. There is no such thing as inherent or the default. Everyhting is shaped socioculturally.

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2012/11/baumeister-and-vohr-women-were-never.html

“Here’s the invisible elephant in Baumeister and Vohs’s world:  The fact that women give birth to children.   The piece I write about in this series almost pretends that children don’t exist.  No, they are not one possible consequence of intercourse, and no, they in no way ever handicapped women who wanted to be artists, composers, generals or stateswomen.  It’s mind-boggling when you think about it, that omission.

Yet the fact that women are the sex which gives birth, combined with no good access to contraception, is probably the most significant historical reason why women have not participated in the public sphere to the same extent as men have.  It is also one of the central reasons for the exclusion of women from many public sector institutions:  The desire to guarantee that the reproduction of the next generation would take place, together with traditional views on how to accomplish that task.”

bold mine.


More from after talking with MeKenna about asexuality & intimacy

SET starts from the assumption that sex is a resource, a good, and also from basic assumptions about economic marketplaces, such as supply & demand.

What is my assumption about sex from the perspective of “sex as a musical jam”? What do we call the music, art, products of creative collaboration? Under what field do art, music, dance, improv comedy all reside? Idk. They’re all creative collaborations that mutually constitute or create something organic and intimate… I was talking with Kenna about the intimate sphere or domain. If there is a mutual motivation or shared goal? Idk, that seems reductive. Shared responsibility in supply and demand?

Minimizing…

…to uphold the status quo, to avoid introspecting, to avoid accepting reality

Patriarchal Reflex – implicit system justification

http://matthewremski.com/wordpress/minimization-patriarchal-reflex/

&

&

The paper in feminism & psychology leanna sent… talking about the role or function of victim blaming there

system justification; just world hypothesis; enacting angry white men

just world hypothesis seems to be from criminology. what is it’s social psychological version? system justification?

maybe some study about bannon’s Killing Machine (https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism?utm_term=.wxBLBlmnb#.lyZrqXjaR)

So how does the language used- the propaganda- persuade people? It’s acting upon grievances. THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT GRIEVANCES AND ENTITLEMENT AND DESERVINGNESS AND EXPECTATION. There is something about anxiety and vulnerability and the inequality between the sexed bodies that men have taken up and use to subjugate women and control their bodies, control the human race. That’s why angry white men flock to different masculinity something sites- gun shows and colonialism and conquering and harassment…

Okay the other thing is the essentializing, the inevitability, the “natural,” the “there will always be murderers and rapists.” The just world hypothesis. The maintenance of the status quo.

men at risk of accusations of sexual assault or harassment

https://jezebel.com/missing-the-point-of-sexual-harassment-stories-by-a-mil-1819281750?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

“I read the whole “overdramatic illness” thing is actually an evolutionary trait from way back when. If the (cave)men were expected to hunt animals and they got sick they could A) Tough it out and possibly get killed by these animals (boars, mammoths, deer, etc.) or B) Rest and recover so as not to get killed by these animals. The genetic trait for resting and recovering was passed on because those guys survived.

Women, on the other hand, never had the need to rest and recover because the risks were lower in the cave, so the ones who powered through were able to raise better-suited offspring than the ones that would succumb to the illnesses. Those better-suited offspring inherited and passed on the “females-tough-it-out” gene because they could acquire more mates than those whose mothers weren’t toughing it out.

But who knows?”

 


  • But they can’t help it! Don’t you know that women’s boobs and butts have magnets that draw men to them? You can’t fight nature!

  • Starred for use of a common argument.

     


    Yes. There are large cultures—both in the US and outside—that teach boys to avoid girls and girls that they are responsible for hiding their bodies rather than teach boys to take responsibility for their actions (they do teach girls that they are responsible for that and for the boys as well). These people grow up. They get jobs. They work. Some of them get promoted into managerial positions. They may soften and walk back what they were taught. They may not. But that implicit bias still remains.

    I’d wager a good amount of these men don’t trust themselves either. They may think a lot of women are conniving and trying to get a pay out, but I’d bet a good amount of men with these policies are really thinking that they’ll be unable to control themselves around a female subordinate or co-worker that they find attractive. They think that’s just the way men are.


    OKay now from http://www.shondaland.com/act/a12790498/harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault-pence-rule/

    “Harvey Weinstein didn’t have to meet with anyone, man or woman, one-on-one to so his job. Not a single person.” <– Someone’s tweet in response to people saying “rather than mike pence’s rule about not being alone with women, men could just not sexually harass or assault women” and so not everyone relies on the argument that men just can control themselves, there is also the fear that women are liars, that when there is never official evidence besides he said she said, there is always the possibility of false conviction or condemnation. so the only way to be 100% safe from being accused is to always have a witness…

    People keep saying he could just NOT come on to colleagues but if it was me, that wouldn’t assuage my fear that I could be accused of it regardless…

    But this reminds me of the trans bathroom thing. It’s the fear that someone could say they’re trans as an excuse to be in the bathroom of whomever they are trying to perv on, and be entirely within their rights. Okay but they will likely be acting suspiciously or giving off creepy vibes, it’s obvious who just wants to use the toilet and mind their own business. And if you can’t tell, that’s a YOU problem. Nothing would change. The only thing that changes is you can’t be immediately pissed at people in the bathroom who don’t look like you expect them to.


Safety shouldn’t be earned, safety is ubiquitously deserved. But primarily advocating for and focusing on self-protective measures is really saying “make sure he rapes teh other girl” (from shondaland article)