Sunday, December 03, 2017

Why 'Ban Men' is not the answer

When Dan Savage declares himself "done with men" in a recent column, it would be a stretch to take that literally. (If nothing else, he is a man, and can't be done with himself.) But when straight or bi or otherwise somewhat-into-men-identified women make declarations along those lines, this is taken seriously. (As in the letter Savage is responding to!) Being done-with-men is... it's not a thing, exactly, so much as an ambient mood. Every day, a new story emerges about another of those men. Men in positions of power being awful. The stories are so plentiful that today, a man I'd actually encountered, in person, in a professional situation, is on the list. (I'd thought I was sufficiently out of the loop that this couldn't happen, but a brief brush with media-stuff is apparently enough.) And if you yourself are not a man, you do have that option, in the abstract at least. No men, none, done with them.

The zeitgeist, then, seems headed towards a world without men - as a dream, if not, of course, a reality. As a millennial, feminist woman, one who has authored countless think-pieces, a New Yorker living in Toronto, a woman who owns a Glossier highlighter for crying out loud, I'm the target audience for women-only spaces, but also for a very modern sexuality that allows women to just sort of opt out of men. Ban men! Men are the worst. I know I should agree to this. And I don't lack for personal experience of certain men - men I knew personally, men in public spaces - being the worst. But... yeah.

That women - some women? most women? - seek out sex with men, seek out sexually charged interactions with men, find men desirable, have partners who are men (without finding their partner's gender a drawback) becomes this lost detail. That a woman would actually want men, and would admit to this, at a time like this, is... passé? problematic? It's an admission that can be made, if at all, with a regretful tone, with this sort of, ugh what a shame, this can't be turned off. That there's any sort of positive joy in attraction to men is taboo.

The "joy" aspect might seem like a side note: What does the female pursuit of pleasure have to do with the far more pressing concern of female victimhood? (Worse: it may come across as nostalgia for old-time office 'flirtation' of the sort that consisted of what is today rightly understood as sexual harassment.) This is why it's important to see that women's desire for men and sexist oppression are intertwined. The expectation of female passivity in hetero relationships is what gives us the rom-com narrative - repeated in real-life (if embellished) examples such as newspaper wedding announcements - where a woman was indifferent to some man in her life, until he pursued her and persuaded her to get past her apathy or even revulsion. Also the pick-up artist myth that every woman is a strategy away from consent.

Female heterosexuality is understood - as I've mentioned before, likely on WWPD - not as a sexual orientation but as a lack thereof. As conventionality. As basic-ness. As agreeability. Which, I mean, I see how it can look that way - the curious privilege, as a woman, of wanting the gender one is expected to want is that one gets to play-act that role - but a moment's reflection on how teen girls (who are for various reasons that would themselves be a post largely exempt from those expectations) respond to heartthrobs suggests that straight and bi women are, yup, attracted to men.

If we were to acknowledge that women want, and more specifically, that women have desires other than being thought hot and available while 22, by men at least two decades their senior, that would... well, that would be at least as dangerous to patriarchy as the conceptual banning of men.

While there may be differences in exactly how men and women - as well as those of varying testosterone levels - experience desire, it's a mistake to imagine (or to infer from the trans man's testosterone anecdote in Savage's post, a story I'd seen somewhere else recently as well - maybe The Rebel Sell?) that women could take or leave the people they're drawn to. It's a mistake - or a fantasy? to think of female desire as the desire for, at best, a very special friend. It's a dangerous mistake, because it leads to a mistaken understanding (see also) of exactly why it is that the villain in nearly all of these cases is a dude. It leads to imagining the reason there are male but not female Weinsteins is that men, but not women, want. As versus that societal power dynamics are such that (some) men are led to believe wanting=getting, while all women are aware that wanting and acting on it entails risk. Risks of all sorts - of violence, of unwanted pregnancy, of ruined reputations, this is all old news.

But there's another risk, which is of falling into the category of... undesirable. The Woman is meant to be constantly rebuffing advances, not pursuing and - some of the time - getting shot down. A woman who pursues is one who has made peace with the fact that not everyone finds her attractive. Whereas a woman who doesn't pursue? She can live in the belief that the world's straight men are divided between those who definitely want her and those who are simply too respectful (or intimidated, or busy with work...) to express their desires for her. If pleasure, for women, involves being thought desirable, then what joy could there possibly be in verifying that the hot guy who hasn't given you the time of day is, in fact, not interested? How could the slight chance he is interested make pursuit worthwhile, if the whole point is to be thought beautiful, which would rather have to happen unprompted.

All of this - and personal bias, fine - is why I think The Conversation needs to incorporate, and not brush aside as distasteful or irrelevant, the fact that many/most women desire men. If anything, we'd all be a lot safer if that were better understood.

7 comments:

Andrew Stevens said...

I'll just leave this here.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy said...

When I wrote about this previously - here! - I mentioned that my own only experience with this sort of harassment in a work setting was from a woman: http://whatwouldphoebedo.blogspot.ca/2017/10/yes-i-guess-all-women.html So rest assured I'm aware that women, too, can harass.

Andrew Stevens said...

My point was that the real reason why the perpetrator is almost always a dude is simply media bias - they completely ignore and dismiss female perpetrators such as Mariah Carey. If women do commit 20% of sexual harassment, then your explanation is unnecessary. Men sexually harass at about the same proportion that they commit any other crime and so it needs no special explanation distinct from violent crimes, property crimes, or whatever.

Andrew Stevens said...

Note that this supports your point about female desire! It just also rebuts the need for some alternate explanation like being taught wanting=getting.

Andrew Stevens said...

Oh, I wanted to correct an overstatement of my own. While I have no doubt that public interest and media bias play a large role in why it's "always a dude," obviously male reluctance to report female sexual harassment also plays a large role.

As a young man, I must have been sexually harassed dozens of times by handsy young women (and a couple of times by gay men). I am reluctant to talk about it and frame it as sexual harassment because A) I was not and am not traumatized by it, B) I do not feel like a victim because of it, C) I have zero desire for anybody to see me as a victim, and D) I do not share the (general) female horror of being aggressively flirted with or even sexually harassed by someone who is "below my league."

On that last, I vividly recall one of your commenters here, years ago, candidly talking about being flirted with by a "neckbeard" and horrified to think that he thought he had a chance with her. In our gendered society, women get to play "above their league" while men generally do not. Most (though not all!) women are reluctant to sleep with men who are "beneath them." Most (but not all!) men have no such reluctance. Because I do not share that horror, if a woman flirted with me or even sexually harassed me and I had no desire to sleep with her, I still always let her down as gently as possible.

Andrew Stevens said...

One more amendment - I should have said I have negative desire for anybody to see me as a victim.

endy smith said...

I should know that I and resume writer net blog page 10 completely support you and your ideas. It is very important for us. Thanks.