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.
Are we saying that there is no biological component to sexuality?
Blaming women for men’s (mis)behavior, sexual and other, is one of the most pernicious ‘privileges’ of patriarchy. It is written into religions (hi, Eve!), philosophy, laws, and social mores, and it has been responsible for countless instances of systemic and individual violence against and oppression of women.
It quite remarkable that the proponents of this ridiculous and toxic worldview also insist that men, who are, according to their own beliefs, supremely susceptible to being led astray and unable to control their sexual impulses, should be in charge of everything that matters. The absurdity of this set up does not dawn on them, so ingrained are their patriarchal and misogynist beliefs and mores in our culture.
Thank heavens, in a manner of speaking, for feminism.
I mean, it all boils down to taboo, right? If you want to do some immoral thing that’s not taboo, then you’re fine: just resist the urge. but if you want to do something taboo, that in and of itself makes you immoral.
@Mark: No.
@Mark:
“We.” Heh.
Are you claiming that “biological” means “uncontrollable,” and/or that male sexuality has an uncontrollably-rapey part to it? Because that is what we dispute.
@Mark
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here? Of course there’s a biological component to sexuality (I think you might actually mean “sexual attraction” there.) I don’t really see what that has to do with anything.
@Ikeke35:
“What about 2 year olds?”
Bill ‘Grabby Hands’ Gothard’s abuse ‘counseling’ manual has an example of a teenage boy who was ‘seduced’ by his sister when he changed her diapers.
Blaming children for their own sexual abuse is as common among the fundies as is blaming women. Men are godly (literally made in the image of God, unlike women) and pious, but women and girls, who are evil by nature, can and do lead them into temptation.
Patriarchy, especially its religious version, is a great racket for abusers of all kinds.
Well, that’s incredibly messed up. Let’s ask Jesus what he thinks about men looking at women with lust in their eyes. See where he’s putting the blame.
That doesn’t sound much like he’s saying “What a sl*t! Your desire to rape her is all her fault and she needs to take responsibility for that!”. Sounds more like he’s telling them to take action in controlling themselves around women, both in thought and deed.
The fact the molestation happened in the Duggar home and is so common in fundie sects completely disproves the theory that rape is something rapists do because they’re tempted by slutty clothes. It’s really a stretch to claim that prepubescent girls sleeping in modest full length nightgowns looks like slutty temptresses. Not that misogynists won’t try. The Advanced Training Institute, which the Duggars and other quiverfull families follow recommends that boys not be allowed to change their baby sister’s diapers in case their nudity stirs up lust.
What.
The.
Actual.
Fuck!?
Also, notice how the men are uncontrollable rape machine when their lust is stirred narrative is only pushed by both religious fundies and the manosphere when they’re talking about heterosexual men. I never see men being counseled to cover up their biceps and wear shirts that aren’t tight across the pecs in case a gay/bi/pan man sees them and goes into an uncontrollable rapey lust. Nope! Apparently, men’s biological and/or God given urges to rape the object of their desire disappears when that object is male. Not that male victims are never victim blamed. They are. But there isn’t a whole cottage industry surrounding the notion that men should hide their bodies to avoid getting themselves raped.
I get really irritated at people who insist that I am a man and therefore must be completely unable to control my sexuality.
@Mark:
Do try to keep up.
So much yes to this. I read this article about sexual harassment and rape in Egypt a few years ago. For various reasons, it had became a publicly debated topic. Conservatives tried to blame this on women not veiling up properly. Then some feminists showed statistics on how many of the targeted women had actually been wearing hijabs or even niqabs at the time, whereupon some conservative asshole instead explained them being targeted by saying that they were probably not circumcised (i.e., genitally mutilated). Apparently, if a woman has all of her genitalia left, she sort of emits some kind of horniness radiation that can penetrate even really thick layers of clothing and make men around her go crazy with lust.
Mark – yes, that is the exact cartoonish oversimplification being discussed in this thread. Next question?
Are you saying that biology makes all men rapists?
If so, why despite how common rape is, why are the majority of men not actually rapists?
Funny how the MRAs love to say that feminists think all men are rapists when in actuality the only people making that argument are misogynists like you.
@PPT – remember that troll a couple of weeks ago who tried to tell us we were all as dogmatic and deluded as creationists, then went on in the next breath to argue that evolution “designed” men to be superior to women? It was pretty lol-worthy.
@Catalpa
THIS. These fundie churches proclaim that only men can be trusted to make good decisions. They put the sons up on pedestals, groom them to be head of the family, raise them to run the world….yet they can be totally derailed by a 5 year old’s “enticement” and “immodest dress” (from behind the closed door of her bedroom)? If that’s the case, if that’s what they’re arguing, then these men shouldn’t even be running lemonade stands, and maybe they’re the ones that should be wrapped in stifling burqas and confined indoors. That would make a lot more sense, logically.
Speaking of pedestalizing, also can’t stand the way these churches put the onus on women not to interfere with a man’s “path of righteousness” (because obviously, only a man’s relationship to God counts). They teach that men have a lot more to lose from sex, spiritually. It’s women’s responsibility to support and not distract men on their heroic, lonely journey to the heights of godliness. That women might be on a journey of their own that could be imperilled by “wordly distraction”, doesn’t occur to the people preaching this stuff. No, when a man is led astray and falls from the heights of purity, it’s a spiritual tragedy. If a woman strays into the realm of sin, well, it’s not like Jesus would ever accept her as an apostle, so no biggie.
@WWTH:
I was gonna be snarky about arousing lust in gay men, but then I remembered that apparently you can gay-panic a guy right in the head, rob his apartment, and steal his car, and then get acquitted by claiming he tried to kiss you.
Terry Pratchet could look at the world, get angry at it, and still write comedy, but I sure can’t.
Oh, and FYI to MRAs, circumcision is a requirement in the quiverfull movement. So, if you really think circumcision is abusive to boys, you probably should think twice about aligning yourselves with them.
Haha. Just kidding! I know bonding over your mutual misogynistic, rape apologizing ideologies are more important to you.
I’m really not surprised that these men think of a (voluntary) exchange of money as equivalent to rape. Think about it. If rape victims are really in it for the money, as many misogynists claim, there must be a financial value attached to the act of rape. In other words, they don’t see rape as an actual assault, since sex is something they think women use to gain power, money and resources. Rape = robbery in their mind, and dating = robbery in their mind, ergo rape = dating. Maybe that’s why you see members of the manosphere say that rape isn’t really that bad all the time. In their mind, it’s no worse than paying to see a movie you didn’t enjoy or paying for a dinner that left you hungry. Of course, when I try to explain how being raped affected me to a member of the manosphere, I usually hear that I really wanted it, that I’m making it up, that I just need to get over it, or that I’m a rare case, because women don’t actually get raped that often.
What pisses me off most about people who think like the Duggers is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. For being a family that seemingly follows every word of the bible it sure doesn’t seem like they actually read it.
What kind of denial do these people live in and how can they stand it?!
And who came up with the idea of circumcision to begin with. All the manly men ever to man let the lowly women decide thousands of years ago? I’m thinking no.
When are these assholes going to realize that MEN instituted all the crap they whine about??
@Mark – Just because an urge is “biological” doesn’t mean you’re required to immediately indulge it every time it happens. The urge to pee is biological, but we don’t go around dribbling all over other people’s feet as soon as the need hits, because gross. And inconsiderate. Even animals have restraints on where and when they pee, eat, nest, and mate. Humans, being social hominids, regulate their biological functions to a greater degree to maximize group stability, health, and hygiene. Sorry, bro, but one person’s immediate need for gratification doesn’t trump the greater social good.
It’s pretty misandric to go around saying that men are no better than animals, dontchathink?
Well, it seems as if the argument is either:
a) the lust that these men feel when they see women’s bodies is a social construct, so they should just shut up;
b) they don’t actually feel that degree of lust when they see women’s bodies and are lying and trying to make excuses to hurt others;
c) they do feel that way but it simply doesn’t matter because they are a minority and other people’s feelings take precedence in this matter.
I don’t think that even the guys that are quoted above are claiming it is *uncontrollable* lust, are they?
Mark, I’ve been wondering, are you Mark Minter?
The fascinating thing about this covering up your body stuff, is it can actually make things more hot down there, in the ‘lower brain’. I have a book, The Islamist, it’s the autobiography of a guy from a moderate family in the UK who got radicalised at college and nearly went full suicide bomber. Great book, a real eye-opener.
He said that the girls of his radical Islam movement were actually the most hardline. The guys were fairly laid-back about the dress stuff, but the girls, under the influence of their female mentors, took it on themselves to first wear hijab, then the face covering, then full burqa, and gloves…and one even began to speak to men only from behind a purdah screen…the author found this ridiculous.
But it was the effect on the guys that was most interesting. First, they were rendered in awe of the women and their fierce commitment: they felt like slackers by comparison and it gave the girls the moral edge. And second: well, the covering up of the body, making it forbidden, had the effect of driving the guys mad. There were Western girls all over the show in crop tops, but the ‘lust to uncover what is forbidden’ as the writer put it, made these burqa girls devastatingly sexy.
And then, the mad lust of the guys set the girls off and the whole Islamist meeting room became overwhelmed with sexual tension and there was a rash of elopements, since it was the only possible way to get it on and the issue had become urgent.
Interesting, right…just like the Duggars, its the women who drive this stuff. Its Michelle, not Jim Bob, who is the leader here. Its always women who are the worst for it all. I wonder if this is really very deep stuff, because if life really is about sex and nothing else, then they are just following a natural instinctive pattern no different to the mating behaviour of animals: hide something, cover it up, make it forbidden, and you make it more alluring. After all this is what is driving these ‘coalpha’ commenters nuts: not the clothes, but the fact the girls wont give these repellent creatures the time of day. If the girls wore burqa, it would be no different.
I suppose in evolutionary terms, they are the ones not destined to reproduce…the world is over-populated after all, so this could just be Nature’s way of signalling an end to certain bloodlines, to cut down the numbers.. for all we know, they could be giving off some pheromone or some very slight subliminal signal that communicates their unfitness to mate from right down the end of the road.
@Mark:
You left out:
d) They are rationalising their own poor impulse control and projecting the blame upon others.
I’m going to go with d.
There is no argument; it’s a simple statement of fact. No matter what feelings may be aroused when you see a woman your reaction is entirely your own responsibility and you should be able to excercise some self control (like the majority of the population manages)