Feminism in 2012

[Eponine]

The skeevy part of the example to me is this: he's engineering a situation where the woman would be scared, in the hope that she will satisfy his primal need of being the protector. Underlying this explanation is a tiny nostalgic whiff of "ah, gone are the days when men can freely experience this primal need." If, for instance, he simply went to a scary movie with friends because he likes scary movies, then that's one thing. But to invite women to got scary movies with him with an anticipation of feeding off of their emotional response is... skeevy. And not particularly enlightened with regards to gender interactions. Does it cross over to sexism? No, I don't think so. But it's edging towards it.

I agree with you, Terra, and based on that one thing, I would not want Rothfuss to be my SO.

But I am wondering why women are the ones to get all freaked out over scary movies - or are they? If a "typical" man gets freaked out over scary movies, what does he do? Probably he does not cling onto someone next to him. My response toward a woman who reacts by clinging onto someone and getting all emotional over a scary movie isn't particularly positive. (In fact, a few weekends ago, I was riding in a car in a mixed gender group including two women I didn't know well, and they were going on and on about how scared they got by movies, and I was having such a hard time keeping my mouth shut, but I'm kind of an asshole, so probably not the best data point).

ETA: This would be a better story if I could say I went to a scary movie with Terra and he screamed and tried to crawl onto my lap. But I think part of the reason that wouldn't happen (I assume), is because women are sexually rewarded for acting that way, and to some extent, choose to respond that way.

[Castel]

But I am wondering why women are the ones to get all freaked out over scary movies - or are they?

Isn't this as much of an affectation as the whole "strong man protecting woman scared from aliens thing" consciously or no? Honestly, I don't know people who become so scared they need to grasp someone else in a theater they went to specifically to become scared.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Fashion magazines are not aimed at males.

[Sci-2]

But I am wondering why women are the ones to get all freaked out over scary movies - or are they? If a "typical" man gets freaked out over scary movies, what does he do? Probably he does not cling onto someone next to him.

My buddy, twice my size at the time, clinged onto me at the end of The Others.

[Sci-2]

As an outsider I'm baffled by the slant in your media. I try to think of practical reasons but I still have no idea why it's so.

Well, there are cultural slants involved here but even then my friends are a pretty mixed group. I wasn't talking about media though I do think fashion is a weird world in itself.

[Elder Sister]

My buddy, twice my size at the time, clinged onto me at the end of The Others.

Thanks. I didn't want to admit that I did this during The Ring and The Grudge.

I hate those dirty haired ghosts. They scare the crap out of me.

But my husband does it too. We are like two chickens.

[Kalbear]

Fashion magazines are not aimed at males.

all western fashion is aimed at males.

[karaddin]

But, just as Pat's female characters are all some variation of "attractive," Pat's language gives away that he can't help thinking about attractive women when he thinks about women.

It might seem really strange for your average straight man to imagine being any other way. But when I think "man" I don't think of John Hamm. The first image that pops into my head is actually of that scene in the Thomas Crown Affair (remake) of all those men in bowler hats. Faceless, generic, sexless. A prototype, issues of attraction totally a separate issue.

This got me thinking and it's definitely something that I do, if I think woman the vague mental image I get definitely includes an impression of "attractive". I don't know how much of that comes from feeling that for the majority of women there is definitely something you can find attractive about them, how much of it comes from more positive associations with women than men, and how much of it comes from my own internal issues. And how much of it is just a male thing.

Other than that, I agree with TP on the skeeviness of that movie comment as well. Enjoying that when it happens is one thing, it's the desire to manufacture that scenario that is skeevy to me.

My office is really lax about the business casual dress code. A lot of people hit the gym at lunch and walk around with wet hair all afternoon, etc. Nevertheless, when a friend of a friend who wears only menswear and has a very (intentionally) androgynous look started working here, I heard a lot of commentary about whether she pees standing up behind her back. Seriously.

I think we are a long way away from this sort of thing going away. I was at lunch with some of my good friends last week, all but one of them know what I'm planning at the moment, and yet when the conversation turned to a particular female colleague (sort of - she works in a team we don't really deal with much, and we almost never see her) who is quite assertive, the one who doesn't know about me made a comment about her maybe having a penis under her skirt, and they went with it a little from there - a joke about having seen an adams apple etc. These are friends who are being quite accepting and supportive of me, but turn it on someone else and prejudices leak through anyway. It's not like there wasn't reason to be disparaging, she had made some very unusual comments to the friend that started it when we saw her just before lunch, it's just that the form that it takes isn't OK.

all western fashion is aimed at males.

Overall I'd largely agree with this, but there is direct marketing and indirect marketing - and I'd say this case is a matter of indirect marketing. When you get into Victoria's Secret shows, that's very much direct at men, but fashion generally is indirect.

[Guest Raidne]

This got me thinking and it's definitely something that I do, if I think woman the vague mental image I get definitely includes an impression of "attractive". I don't know how much of that comes from feeling that for the majority of women there is definitely something you can find attractive about them...

I do think that's where it comes from. So it's hard to say that it's just negative, but there are some implications, one of which would be that it's much easier to be a man who most people would not find to be remotely attractive in any fashion than it would to be a similarly situated woman. The other is that it leads to women being very concerned with their looks and getting to smoke screen that as media-induced insecurity when we should really own it for what it is, which is vanity, plan and simple. We read entire magazines devoted to what we want to look like. Vanity. You can't be bothered by media representations of what you should look like if you aren't so concerned with what you look like.

Pretty big gender difference there, although in terms of perceptions, at any rate, that doesn't apply for gay men, to the point where even vain straight men were called "gay" and then "metro," etc. But a straight man who is deeply concerned with his looks is a fairly rare thing. A straight woman who is deeply concerned with her looks is ridiculously commonplace, probably more so than not. Learning to recognize vanity as the source of insecurity about standards of beauty has pretty much 100% solved this problem for me.

Overall I'd largely agree with this, but there is direct marketing and indirect marketing - and I'd say this case is a matter of indirect marketing. When you get into Victoria's Secret shows, that's very much direct at men, but fashion generally is indirect.

I would not. Women's fashion is not at all directed at men. If it were, fashion magazines would not advise against showing too much skin, not having ridiculous cleavage, etc. Just look at Carrie Bradshaw - total Man Repeller. Nothing she wears would appeal to any man. It's about wearable art. Which is why the models are so ridiculously thin - you can do more with wearable art when the person wearing it a clothes hanger, because it removes the concern about whether or not it actually flatters the body, freeing you up for more creative aspects of expression in fashion. I hear this is what people like about Donna Karan couture - it's still about the fit and whether it flatters for her. Even in regular middle class consumer fashion - you're telling me men want me to go out and buy flat moto boots? Cobalt blue? Colored denim? I don't think so.

The double-bind is that there is almost no way to dress explicitly to sexually attract a man without also looking cheap and trashy to other women. Which is not, by definition, fashionable. Men like a simple, well-fitting black dress, a fitted t-shirt a jeans, read: (1) simple and (2) fitted. This is not what fashion is about. I posted a pair of silky wide-leg floral printed pants in the fall fashion thread - those are man repellers. No guy is going to like those that doesn't also like penis.

[Shryke]

I think Rothfuss's excuse is crap.

In the example, where he delights in the thought of having an attractive woman cling to his arms when she becomes fearful at a scary movie, he explained that this is not sexist because he, as a man, should not be forced to not enjoy something just because he's a man. The similarity he drew was to say that women who want to stay at home and raise a family should not feel that they can't do that, just because they're women.

I don't find that convincing at all.

To put another way, how is his reasoning not applicable to any number of other activities and behaviors, like wolf-whistling at women, that are unacceptable? Being clinged to makes him feel like a burly man who can protect? Well, wolf-whistling makes some men feel all erectile for having the power to pursue. So how is he going to slice-and-dice his feminism to allow for his cherish of scared women but not wolf-whistles at women who walk by? I am not sure. I sure can't see it.

The skeevy part of the example to me is this: he's engineering a situation where the woman would be scared, in the hope that she will satisfy his primal need of being the protector. Underlying this explanation is a tiny nostalgic whiff of "ah, gone are the days when men can freely experience this primal need." If, for instance, he simply went to a scary movie with friends because he likes scary movies, then that's one thing. But to invite women to got scary movies with him with an anticipation of feeding off of their emotional response is... skeevy. And not particularly enlightened with regards to gender interactions. Does it cross over to sexism? No, I don't think so. But it's edging towards it.

The difference is the woman is consenting to watch the film with him.

And frankly, the idea that she doesn't have some inkling that "a horror movie might be scary" is goddamn ludicrous.

[TerraPrime]

The difference is the woman is consenting to watch the film with him.

And frankly, the idea that she doesn't have some inkling that "a horror movie might be scary" is goddamn ludicrous.

The point is not whether the women are expecting to be scared. The point is that at least I, and a couple others, find it skeevy that Rothfuss will invite women to these movies with the anticipation/hope that they will be scared and then cling to his arms. The woman may or may not expect to be scared, but that's a bit irrelevant to what I find objectionable.

Oh well, but that's enough about Rothfuss. Every time he speaks, I think lesser of him. :dunno:

[Elder Sister]

The point is not whether the women are expecting to be scared. The point is that at least I, and a couple others, find it skeevy that Rothfuss will invite women to these movies with the anticipation/hope that they will be scared and then cling to his arms. The woman may or may not expect to be scared, but that's a bit irrelevant to what I find objectionable.

Oh well, but that's enough about Rothfuss. Every time he speaks, I think lesser of him. :dunno:

One thing that has been rolling around in my brain today and yesterday is how much effort it takes to question things. Your point about Rothfuss is an example. Most fans are just going to read that quote and think what a down to earth guy he is without taking the time to really think about what that quote means.

I heard a speaker several years ago say that the best advice he was ever given was to question everything.

[Shryke]

The point is not whether the women are expecting to be scared. The point is that at least I, and a couple others, find it skeevy that Rothfuss will invite women to these movies with the anticipation/hope that they will be scared and then cling to his arms. The woman may or may not expect to be scared, but that's a bit irrelevant to what I find objectionable.

Oh well, but that's enough about Rothfuss. Every time he speaks, I think lesser of him. :dunno:

Consent is exactly the point when you are comparing it to genuine sexual harassment like wolf-whistling at passing women.

You can find it skeevy certainly (I find it a bit so), but the comparison you make and your contention that one cannot hold this view and not endorse actual sexual harassment just don't work.

[Elder Sister]

Consent is exactly the point when you are comparing it to genuine sexual harassment like wolf-whistling at passing women.

You can find it skeevy certainly (I find it a bit so), but the comparison you make and your contention that one cannot hold this view and not endorse actual sexual harassment just don't work.

The bottom line (for me, anyway) is that he seems to find the fear and perceived weakness a turn on.

[Castel]

The bottom line (for me, anyway) is that he seems to find the fear and perceived weakness a turn on.

No. He finds removing fear and being a strong presence in the face of weakness a turn on. It seems like a small distinction but it's the difference between a sadist and a white knight

[Shryke]

Yeah, he's not saying he finds fear and weakness attractive, he's saying:

1) he finds being a source of shelter and support for a woman a turn on.

And probably a good chunk of:

2) he finds a woman clinging closely to his body a turn on

[Merentha]

My buddy, twice my size at the time, clinged onto me at the end of The Others.

Shit, both my girlfriend and I grabbed each other through pretty much all of El Orfanato.

No. He finds removing fear and being a strong presence in the face of weakness a turn on. It seems like a small distinction but it's the difference between a sadist and a white knight

And white knights are kinda skeevy too? Or at least people who get off on being white knights.

[Eponine]

Yeah, he's not saying he finds fear and weakness attractive, he's saying:

1) he finds being a source of shelter and support for a woman a turn on.

But being a source of shelter and support requires the woman to be fearful and weak.

Of course, this isn't always true in every case - two people could be a support system for each other without either being inherently weak.

But that's not what this example is about - what seems to turn him on in this situation is that he gets to be the support because she's weak - if she weren't weak, no one would be needing support. So, gross.

[Elder Sister]

But being a source of shelter and support requires the woman to be fearful and weak.

Of course, this isn't always true in every case - two people could be a support system for each other without either being inherently weak.

But that's not what this example is about - what seems to turn him on in this situation is that he gets to be the support because she's weak - if she weren't weak, no one would be needing support. So, gross.

I love it when Eponine and I agree. :D

[Shryke]

But being a source of shelter and support requires the woman to be fearful and weak.

Of course, this isn't always true in every case - two people could be a support system for each other without either being inherently weak.

Does it now? I don't think so at all.

Relationships are built on mutual support. Not everyone is always fiercely independent and unneeding of support at all times.

The only weird part here is him engineering the specific situation, not the idea itself.