Over on Boing Boing, Mark Frauenfelder has posted the excerpt below from A Love That Multiplies: An Up-Close View of How They Make It Work by Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar — yes, those Duggars — explaining how women “defraud” men when they dress in a way that men find exciting (in their pants).
This, sadly, is not exactly an original or even unusual notion in reactionary religious circles.
Indeed, a couple of years back, I found a rather scary post on a radically pro-patriarchal site called the CoAlpha Brotherhood in which one young man calling himself Drealm lamented that, as a man living “in a university town that’s overrun with young girls” he was literally “forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle”
Like the Duggars, Drealm thought that “a woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement … is an assault on men’s sexuality.”
When women dress like this, he argued, he and other men couldn’t help but want to rape them.
[T]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. … dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. … A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.
Reading back over this now, it’s all a bit too reminiscent of the thinking of Elliot Rodger. Indeed, after Rodger went on his misogyny-driven murder spree, one CoAlpha Forum member wrote that Rodger “would have been a true hero” had he only killed more sorority women; the site now adorns its front page with an homage to Rodger.
But it isn’t just those on the margins of the manosphere who think this way. In The Myth of Male Power, the 1993 book that essentially provided the ideological blueprint for the Men’s Rights movement today, Warren Farrell famously wrote of the “miniskirt power” secretaries allegedly had over their male bosses.
Farrell is a couple of decades older now, and apparently it takes more than a miniskirt to render him powerless these days. And by “more than a miniskirt” I mean less. As in no clothing at all. When Farrell put out a new eBook edition of The Myth of Male Power last year, he had his publisher put a rear-view shot of a nude woman on the cover, “to illustrate,” as he explained in an appearance on Reddit,
that the heterosexual man’s attraction to the naked body of a beautiful woman takes the power out of our upper brain and transports it into our lower brain
This sort of logic, like that of the Duggars and of “Drealm” from the CoAlpha Brotherhood, also conveniently takes the blame for (heterosexual) male behavior and transports it into the bodies of women. With the Duggars, we’ve seen exactly where this sort of logic can lead.
Farrell, much like the Duggars and the excerable “Drealm,” also seems to think that women commit a kind of fraud against men when they “stir up sensual desires” that they don’t intend to fulfill. As Farrell wrote in The Myth of Male Power, when a man pays good money to take a woman out, and she doesn’t repay him, as it were, with sex, she is in his estimation committing a kind of “date fraud” or “date robbery.”
Or even a sort of date rape. Farrell wrote that
dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom – the social custom of him taking money out of his pocket, giving it to her, and calling it a date. … Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.
Emphasis mine, because holy fuck.
This is what happens when your ideology makes women responsible for (heterosexual) men’s desires. Hell, it’s what happens when you make anyone responsible for the desires of someone else, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Your pants feelings are your responsibility. Not anyone else’s. Full stop.
Oh, so you would also go onto a blog that was critiquing comments that, say, a bunch of neo-Nazis were making about how ‘uncontrolled’ immigration was ruining the racial purity of the United states and how we need to prevent brown people and jews from destroying civilization as we know it by any means necessary, go to the comments section of that blog, and go “are you guys saying that we should just let literally anyone immigrate into the country without scrutiny?”.
Good to know you’re an equal opportunity apologist for terrible people and bigoted ideas.
@ Mark
Just to finish the analogy, cause you still don’t get it, we were the ones saying, “What!? You can’t force people to keep their money in their wallets at all times just because you might be tempted to take it and that makes you feel bad. And you sure as hell can’t punch them in the face and take their money! That’s messed up.” Then you come along and say something like “So people don’t need money to live?” followed with “Maybe people could just be considerate and keep their money in their wallets? Or maybe there could be some rules to govern when and how they are allowed to take out their money?”
So no, you’re just being silly.
I think perhaps Mark might see things a little differently if we used a different analogy.
His claim that “well the OP isn’t actually raping women [we hope; we have no real way of knowing if this is true – ed.], so it’s not that bad…he’s just talking about his feelings; what’s wrong with that” obviously seems reasonable to him, as does his assertion that we should all keep the “sensitivities” of others in mind when dressing ourselves.
But I suspect it might not seem so reasonable if we put Mark in the object position of this argument rather than the subject position.
So let’s pretend that the OP wasn’t a manospherian complaining about women but a fundamentalist Muslim blogger complaining about Christians, going on and on about how every time he sees someone wearing a crucifix, it just makes him want to cut off their heads. Now, the fact that he lives in the US and isn’t in jail means that he hasn’t actually decapitated anyone (we hope, because we have no real way of knowing if this is true), so he’s just expressing his feelings, and there’s nothing wrong with that…right, Mark?
So in this hypothetical situation, Mark is essentially saying that wanting to cut off someone’s head is a perfectly reasonable reaction to seeing someone wearing a crucifix, and that Christians should think of the sensitivities of others and stop wearing crucifixes. And maybe there ought to be a law against wearing crucifixes.
The people on this thread are trying – mostly patiently – to explain to him that a) wanting to cut someone’s head off is not actually a reasonable response to them wearing something, b) this isn’t a free speech issue as much as it is a fucked-up thinking issue, and c) that absent a clear context – like wearing a swastika t-shirt to the Holocaust Museum – someone else’s issues don’t get to dictate your choice of what to wear in public spaces.
One of the big problems with the OP’s claim that women wearing clothes he considers “slutty” makes him want to rape them is that this type of thinking is pretty much indistinguishable from stuff that actual rapists say, much like the hypothetical fundamentalist Muslim blogger’s thoughts mirror those of actual ISIS members. It’s no great leap to see the connections between the two.
And in both cases – hypothetical Muslim and actual misogynist – that thought process didn’t just spring up out of the blue; these feelings were shaped by a culture that essentially said “yeah, it’s within the range of normal to feel that way.” And we’re saying that it shouldn’t be. Christians should have the right to wear a crucifix if they want and not have to worry about some fuckhead wanting to kill them because “sensitivities.”
Now swap “Christians” for “women,” “a crucifix” for “clothes,” and “kill” for “rape.”
Mark’s problem is he can’t see women as people. He doesn’t even want to see women as people. He is dedicated to arguing that women are not people.
He’s saying men need sex from women to live. He’s saying that denying men sex is like starving someone to death. (He never says straight men owe sex to gay men though. Convenient for him, isn’t it?) It is in his estimation immoral for a woman not to give sexes to men. It’s tantamount to teasing a starving man with food for a woman to have full bodily autonomy according to Mark.
I am not fuel to be used to sustain your manhood, Mark. You can continue to try to scare me and guilt me into accepting my place as an object for men to use. It won’t work. That genie is out of the bottle and you will never get it back in. Never.
You’re repulsive, Mark. All rapists and their apologists are.
If “manhood” only exists in the context of female oppression, manhood needs to go. Gender rolls in general need to be burned to the ground if all they are about is who get’s abused and who get’s to abuse.
Hm, I’m not sure if my last comment is in moderation or it got eaten, so I’m going to try again. Apologies if this is a duplicate.
So, you’re saying you would also go onto a blog that was critiquing neo-nazi posts saying things like how ‘uncontrolled’ immigration was ruining America’s ‘racial purity’, and how every time they saw a [insert slur for Jewish or non-white person here] in public they wanted to take matters into their own hands and solve this infestation of undesirables themselves. You would see people condemning this mindset, scroll down to the comments, and write, for example “so you’re saying that we should just let literally anyone ANYONE into the county without any scrutiny whatsoever?”?
Huh. Well, it’s good to know you’re an equal opportunity apologist for terrible people and bigoted ideas, I suppose.
Lea, you are badass beyond measure. That is all.
Execrable? More like 50 shades of execrable, haha!
Another proof positive that they want to make heterosexual triggering acceptale, the exact same thing they mock homosexuals and transgenders for, adding rancid hypocrisy to mererly being buttholes.
These lulzcows are an endless source of entertainement, does anyone ´ere feel bad for mocking these pathetic wretches? Because if you do, don´t, there is what? Circa 57 Islamic states to choose from? They can escape the first-world and all its problems, go back to the places were the good ol´ times are still ongoing.
But… I don’t believe in those things, and I haven’t said them:
I say:
“I think that rape, murder,and torture are acts of evil… a man who goes online and makes the kind of comments quoted in the OP is not thinking or behaving normally,and is emotionally disturbed”
Your interpretation:
“Mark is essentially saying that wanting to cut off someone’s head is a perfectly reasonable reaction to seeing someone wearing a crucifix,”
I say:
“the point of the analogy was to make clear the basic logic of the statement by changing the object (grammatically speaking) of the sentence to something less emotionally fraught – not to suggest that women are pieces of paper.”
Your interpretation:
“Mark thinks my body is an object with no owner”
I say:
” I don’t think clothing is related to the incidence of sexual assault.”
Your interpretation:
“Your insistence that it is a woman’s job to make sure you don’t rape her is exactly the kind of thing a rapist says to absolve himself of guilt.”
Does anyone else feel that these interpretations are perhaps a little unfair?
Quite frankly, I’m finding the reaction here quite threatening. I would like to discuss this issue, but I get the feeling that the majority of people here aren’t really interested in that. I am perfectly happy to leave this thread if that is what everyone wants, but I would request that you stop making up rubbish, just because, you know, truth is good.
Are you still here?
http://i.imgur.com/9VV5LB3.gif
http://i.imgur.com/PL8CJqK.jpg
Mark, all of those responses were in reaction to your insistence that women should base their clothing choices around what makes men horny. You said it most clearly here:
(Bolding mine)
In addition, plenty of people have directly confronted you about your view that
Telling you that the constant equivocation of bad or extreme behavior with mental illness is harmful and not permitted here, and that such extreme views are not actually all that abnormal with the type of worldview these assholes have. Yet you keep repeating it as if nobody has addressed it and nobody truly understands that you’ve said it. In fact, you seem to think that people here would actually find that statement reasonable.
Pay attention, and maybe you’ll be a bit less baffled.
What, exactly, is the issue you want to discuss, Mark? Because I really can’t tell.
Your first post consisted of:
which didn’t seem to connect to much of anything anyone had been saying up to that point, and which you never bothered to clarify.
And if we’re going to go the route of “requesting that [people] stop making up rubbish, just because, you know, truth is good”, perhaps we could start with your second post:
because none of the “arguments” posted seem to accurately reflect the words of the posters in this thread at all.
So what is it you want to discuss, Mark? What’s issue needs debate or clarification here?
One of the issues here is that you may say:
but when you follow it up with what is essentially a call for women to stop dressing “slutty” (yes, I know you didn’t use those words), you are, in fact, validating the thought process that someone’s clothing choices makes someone else want to rape them. We’re pointing out that no, it isn’t “mind control” as you have said; what it actually is is a fucked-up way of thinking that tries to blame others for the thinker’s own bullshit.
Which is bullshit.
EJ,
Meep.
*hides*
Good.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcu66rJPR51rvvrm4o1_500.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/artoftheprank.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/tumblr_mbcb7kY7Dr1rwjzpqo1_500.gif?resize=483%2C281
@ Mark
Except you have, and your quote mining is cute, but not fooling anybody. Here, I’ll help you out. Again.
You say:
“To the extent that people are capable of actually thinking about what they are doing, of course their actions are their own responsibility – but as far as I can make out, the guys above are actually complaining about the (extreme/abnormal) feelings generated by the clothing of others rather than mind control.”
Our interpretation:
“Mark is essentially saying that wanting to cut off someone’s head is a perfectly reasonable reaction to seeing someone wearing a crucifix,”
You say:
“It’s like if I said, “I saw $10 on the side and I was really tempted to take it” (implication is that I *didn’t* actually take it) and then criticizing this statement, not on the genuine grounds that it would be wrong to take the money, but rather with some bizarre argument about how I’m trying to argue against freedom of will or something.” And then again, with the fat shaming thrown in for good measure, women are also food: “If there are men for whom this is a genuine problem, I think “rip your own eyes out/ leave society/ stop looking at women” is just about the worst and least helpful comment that could possibly be made. It’s a bit like telling a morbidly obese person to eat less.”
Our interpretation:
“Mark thinks my body is an object with no owner”
You say: “Wouldn’t it make sense to have some thought for the sensitivities of others with regard to clothing etc. in public?” and
”…because sexual desire is powerful and potentially damaging there must be rules which aim to govern it. That may include dress codes.”
Our interpretation:
“Your insistence that it is a woman’s job to make sure you don’t rape her is exactly the kind of thing a rapist says to absolve himself of guilt.”
Does anyone else feel that these interpretations are perhaps completely and totally fair?
Mark, in this case, intent is irrelevant. Whatever your intention, you did in fact compare women with an inanimate object, with a thing which is acted upon. Not cool. Not right.
If you’re feeling uncomfortable here mark, by all means feel free to leave. Buh-bye, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Maybe you can find another board that you can talk about how laws should be passed against people disagreeing with you on the Internet, since you seem to believe that anything that causes you discomfort should be outlawed. Have fun!
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lskzx2iJ481qafrh6.gif
I bet you would. You typing that with one hand, Mark? No, Mark. I’m not interested in discussing how I’m responsible if you rape me. I’m really not. I’m not interested in you telling me how my body causes men to rape and murder. I’m not interested in hearing that I should be more considerate of rapists. Take your rapey mansplaining elsewhere. The only liar here is you.
Are the feeling of rapists extreme and abnormal Mark or are they natural to every man and sex from women is a necessity men need to survive?
Which is it to be?
I’m gonna invent a term, right here and right now. Playdoh troll. A playdoh troll is a troll that thrives on ambiguity, changing arguments as easily as playdoh changes shape. Any time you try to put their argument in a box and nail down exactly what it is, the playdoh finds a crack and squeezes out. There is a common core argument that the troll keeps hinting towards, but as soon as there’s a negative reaction the troll will change forms and deny anything insidious. After all, how could a brightly-colored children’s toy possibly have such a terrible belief?
Sealions will at least tell you upfront what their argument is and not leave you alone about it. Playdoh trolls prefer the subtle route, always changing and denying the implications of their statements while persistently pushing some core belief, adopting pretty much any secondary beliefs they feel they need to gain group acceptance, even if those secondary beliefs are somewhat contradictory.
Ffs Mark,
You are being called a rape apologist because you told us women should think of the sensitivities of would be rapists and dress accordingly.
We explained to you that not only is there no end to how strict rapists and their misogynist enablers make the dress code (look at the Taliban) and we explained to you that women and girls who abide by these dress codes still get raped and abused (see the incidences of abuse in the quiverfull movement).
You claimed that some rapists lack self control, that’s why it’s smart to dress modestly. We explained to you that the lack of impulse control theory doesn’t match up with the modus operandi of rapists and child molesters because they plan ahead, they calculate, they manipulate their victims both before and after the crime. The research backs us up. Not you. Here’s an excellent discussion of it. https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
What more discussion do you need. Your points are unoriginal and easily debunked. We debunked them yesterday. You haven’t backed. I suspect nothing will change your mind. Maybe rape and its causes are an interesting discussion for you, but many of the commenters here have lived it. Those of us who haven’t been raped have been sexually harassed. The fear of rape isn’t a fun discussion for women, it’s our lives. We’ve been given tips on how not to get ourselves raped our whole lives. Guess what? They don’t work. Because rapists don’t wear signs. Because most rapists know their victims.
Chalking up the OP to an emotionally disturbed man and suggesting we should dress to accommodate him is rape apologia. Get indignant all you want. All rape apologists say a variation of this
Suggesting that if there are laws against rape there should be laws governing what women are allowed to wear does indeed make the victim as much a criminal as the man who rapes her.
Men not allowed to rape =/= freedom curtailed. Women being forced to wear burkas = freedom curtailed.
You do not have the same rights to my body that I do. You make miniskirts sound like abuse akin to rape.
You are doing so in a thread about a man who RAPED BABIES IN THEIR BEDS. The Duggars are excusing baby raping with the same slut shaming argument you are making. WTF is wrong with you that you think that’s a reasonable position to take?
Damn you blockquote mammoth! Trying again.
I think that rape, murder,and torture are acts of evil Saying that makes no difference if your attitudes reflect rape culture. We’re under no obligation to be nice about this. This is a space full of intelligent, educated feminists who aren’t afraid to voice their opinions. If you can’t take that, that’s on you. The idea that women have to be polite and submissive and nice to people even when it costs us dearly is also a part of rape culture.
the point of the analogy was to make clear the basic logic of the statement by changing the object (grammatically speaking) of the sentence to something less emotionally fraught – not to suggest that women are pieces of paper
Rape is emotionally fraught. That’s what you’re not getting. Rape makes us angry. It should make you angry too. But apparently women disagreeing with you in a not nice tone is more upsetting for you. It’s offensive to use the theft of property as an analogy because it isn’t analogous. We aren’t property. A ten dollar bill, a car etc. doesn’t feel trauma or pain because they aren’t living beings. Women are. That it would occur to you make the analogy at all is offensive. Now you know.
Quite frankly, I’m finding the reaction here quite threatening.
Oh, that’s rich. Who here threatened you? Show the quote. Sorry your ego and your masculinity are so fragile that having women disagree with you is threatening to you, but no, nobody here threatened you or bullied you. Funny how the mere act of disagreeing strongly with your poorly thought out and unoriginal opinions is perceived as threats to you but a man saying he wants to rape women for dressing slutty get’s a reaction that’s more like “meh, calm down ladies. Just dress with the sensitivities of rapists in mind and you’ll be fine!” Do you really not see the hypocrisy here?
Anything else you’d like to discuss? I’m here for the next few hours and I’d be happy to tear apart any of your other arguments.
Okay, blockquote mammoth. I give up. You win.