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.
Hey, Mark?
OK, so everyone accepts that there is a limit. We are all agreed.
@ Katz
Do you ever get the feeling that Racoos are just biding their time until humanity blows itself up and then they can take over?
As long as you agree that we can put you in jail if this conversation made anyone uncomfortable. Fair is fair.
*headdesk*
I’m this close to cracking, people. This close. If Mark would just admit to have some sort of fundamental religious mindset and agree that he thinks current standards are too risque, that’d be fine! I could deal with puritanical bullshit. I can’t deal with this drumbeat of trivial statements, repeated over and over as if it had some meaningful content.
Playdoh trolling too strong. PT OP, pls nerf kthnxbai.
@Mark
I’ll say it again:
There are religious communities in the USA that finds women wearing pants–slacks, cargo pants, jeans, bellbottoms, doesn’t matter–“uncomfortable”. Should women be banned from wearing pants because these people are “uncomfortable” by it?
@Mark
Some people sexualize nuns because of the habits they (stereotypically) wear. They made people “uncomfortable”. You saying that nuns dress inappropriately?
I just told you that women can be made uncomfortable by the sight of a man wearing a tailored suit. Why are you ignoring that?
This statement continues to proceed from the assumption that what bothers straight men is the normal, and what bothers someone who isn’t a straight man is not normal and we shouldn’t care about their discomfort.
You know, Robert, earlier in the thread, is gay. If you want to be logical, you should quiz him on what it is that straight guys do to make gay men uncomfortable, and start demanding that straight guys stop wearing/doing those things.
If you don’t care that it makes some women uncomfortable to see a well-dressed man, and you don’t care what makes gay men uncomfortable at all, then you are continuing to argue from your conclusion (that we need to privilege the concerns and desires of men, specifically straight men).
Argh! Blockquote mammoth please accept my sacrifice of a sort of on-topic video clip.
Mark, this clip illustrates where there may be some *legitimate* social expectations on dress. What women wear generally *isn’t* a legitimate area of control. See the difference?
I think it depends on the location – maybe you could have a place for the people who were uncomfortable with pants and they could have a local ordinance. Anyone who wanted to wear pants wouldn’t have to go there.
I think in general though the rules for society should be slightly on the conservative side and then have the beach or pool, etc. where people want to wear swimming costumes or whatever.
Policy of Madness –
If that is a widespread view then I think you would have to take that into consideration and dress accordingly. If it is just an individual view, sometimes you have to accept that there is nothing that can be done to accommodate it – but as far as possible make room for people to have a pleasant surrounding
@Mark
…
Okay, no you’re just trolling because that’s fucking ridiculous. That is literally the definition of ridiculous.
ri·dic·u·lous
ri·dic·u·lous [ri díkyələss]
adj
1. unreasonable: completely unreasonable and not at all sensible or acceptable; or Mark’s idea about there being regional ordinances on where women can or cannot wear pants because it makes people’s genitals tingle
2. completely silly: silly and amusing
[Mid-16th century. Formed from Latin ridiculus “laughable,” from ridere “to laugh” (source of English risible), of unknown origin.]
-ri·dic·u·lous·ly, adv
-ri·dic·u·lous·ness, n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Look at that. It really is in the dictionary.
Okay, I’ll take a swing in good faith.
@Mark:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying:
1. A woman wearing “inappropriate” clothing is no invitation to rape her, and ought not be used to defend the rapist.
Okay, good, we all agree on this.
2. BUT you are saying a woman ought not to wear “inappropriate” clothes, just in case, because it might tempt men.
No, that would not work. A woman wearing a bikini and a woman wearing a “home on the prairie” dress have an equal chance of being raped. This is the point everyone is taking issue with, because it places the onus on the woman and it doesn’t even work.
3. You are saying there are “decency” laws, and you appear to be under the impression that they exist so people don’t get raped.
No, that is not why they exist.
4. You are saying that everyone has a responsibility to dress in such a way that it doesn’t make others feel “uncomfortable.”
No, not really. As long as it fits within the law, a person can wear whatever they like and onlookers have to suck it up. This goes for all clothes be they of too little substance or entirely too many sequins.
Did I get everything?
Oh, so we should only care about views that are widespread.
It’s a widespread view that women should be able to wear whatever is within the bounds of the local obscenity laws.
Tell me again why I should care about the feelings of a rapist who can’t handle women wearing shorts and tank tops? It’s seen, on a widespread basis, that this is fine. It’s a small number of (straight) men, and an even smaller number of women, who feel otherwise.
So we’ve come around to a place where you actually agree that women should not be obligated to cover up to protect men’s boners.
Aww, the troll’s ignoring me. We may never know why there need to be laws against making people uncomfortable with your clothes, but not with anything else you might do.
Not really quiet wolf,
2) and 3) are what people are ( I think deliberately) misrepresenting me as saying.
I am saying, and have said several times, many times, that I don’t think clothing is in any way related to sexual assault – that the fact that certain clothing might make men (or women) uncomfortable is actually unrelated to whether or not they will be attacked. The reason why people should wear appropriate clothing is simply because they shouldn’t want to make others uncomfortable – completely unrelated to anything to do with people attacking them.
4) Well, yeah, your view here – that’s what I disagree with – we shouldn’t revel in our right to do things that other people don’t like. It’s actually impossible to run a society if enough people have that attitude.
Mark
Perhaps you could address Katz’s point?
Is there a general responsibility on people not to make other people uncomfortable?
Is the level of discomfort completely subjective or would you apply some objective standard?
katz –
I think that if you have to involve the law it means that there has been a breakdown of simple consideration. I do try to be considerate of other people’s feelings. In the UK I think you actually can be arrested for being offensive.
Majority rules, eh? So the misogynist and homophobe is also a racist, I take it? Colour me as unsurprised as is physically possible.
Alan,
Before I was talking about staring at people on the train – I was trying to make the point that there are a wide range of areas in which we should consider others before acting. Obviously, if someone has a particularly unusual set of things that make them uncomfortable you can try your best, but at the end of the day you just have to say “sorry, there is nothing more I can do”.
I think it has to be subjective, but there are also behaviors where you might want to look at the effect on society generally rather than on individuals and then it would be a bit more objective.
@Mark
You can be arrested for hate speech and inciting hatred. Very different from low-cut jeans.
@Mark:
I’ll ask a question I’ve asked a couple times previously again.
What do you mean by “uncomfortable?” What specifically are you worried about preventing? The statement “people should avoid wearing clothing that makes other people uncomfortable” as a wide range of interpretations, some of which everyone here would agree with and others where everyone here would vehemently disagree.
What degree of uncomfortableness do you feel necessitates other people accommodate? What specifically on the topic of clothing are you talking about when you say “makes people uncomfortable?” What specific pieces of clothing do you think are the “problem” and what pieces are the “solution?”
@Mark
You literal just said:
You LITERALLY just said that.
You know, some people are uncomfortable seeing people wearing clothes. Maybe there should make entire areas outside of just nude beaches so people can walk around fully naked?
There are some people that are uncomfortable with seeing people wearing cargo shorts. Maybe we should make an area that arrest people for wearing cargo shorts?
There are people who are uncomfortable seeing people wear shit from Wal-Mart. Maybe we should make an area that only the highest, most expensive couture is allowed to be worn.
You are literally advocating a fashion police and that’s just fucking ridiculous.
So you’re going to be canvassing gay men to find out what it is that you wear that makes them uncomfortable, right? And then you’re going to stop wearing those things. We wouldn’t want gay men to be uncomfortable, even if that inconveniences you, and not just women who aren’t you.