Money for nothing and the dicks for free

Posted: June 21, 2011 in cock, Feminism, Masculinities, metrosexuality, Metrosexy

It’s different for girls, right? When women get objectified, it’s bad, right? Straight porn exploits women, and club nights that allow women in for free as eye candy are sexist, RIGHT??

I was looking at this interesting new project by Kinkster Kitty Stryker, the Andro-Aperture project. It is all about encouraging women to find/produce/enjoy images of men being sexy.

That is all well and good but it is framed within that old feminist trope, the ‘female gaze’. Where men looking at women is seen as riddled with power relations, but women looking at men is liberating. As for men looking at each other or themselves? That is not mentioned.

http://androaperture.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/link-love-inspirations/#comments

Anyway Kitty included this review of a launch party for a raunchy magazine called Candy Rain. Do you think it sounds misandrist? I do!

‘Last night I attended the launch party for the second issue of Candy Rain Magazine, a glossy little treasure trove of cock shots geared towards “ladies who love the D.” (For those playing along at home, that stands for “dick.”) There were scantily clad people gettin’ it on all over the place. There were water guns. There was burlesque. There was booty rap. And yes, there were dicks, and lots of them. In a jarring reversal of spring break culture, guys could show their dicks to get in for free. Wooooo!

“Here at Candy Rain, we have a simple policy” one of the party’s organizers yelled into the mic at one point. “Show us your dick or get the fuck out!!!” Despite the fact that the blood was supposed to be rushing to my crotch at this point, this made me think. How would I feel if some guy yelled “show us your tits or get the fuck out”? Not very good, I reckon. In objectifying men like this, one might argue Candy Rain apes the worst aspects of the patriarchy. Shouldn’t feminism be working towards a world in which nobody gets objectified?

Not necessarily! I talked with my friend Ann* about this a little, and we decided we were into it. You see, despite the fact that they were showing their bodies off for our (adult) entertaiment that night, men still have all the power. So even if they were being objectified in an uncomfortable way for a few hours, it said nothing about the underlying system in place. It’s simply not the same. It’s like that medieval holiday where the masters served the servants; it was hilarious because it was so unusual, and everything went back to the way it had been shortly thereafter’

http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/candy-rain-magazine-flips-the-script-on-male-raunch-culture/

I don’t know what to do. I am tired of going over to blogs and getting into arguments, or blocked and ignored as I often am. I am tired of sounding like Mark Simpson’s poodle.

Men’s objectification of themselves and their metrosexual self-love seems too much for some women to bear. So they pretend it doesn’t exist. And make up a load of shit about men and women in the process.

Maybe as Camille Paglia calls it, I have a bad case of Big Daddy Syndrome and I want MetroDaddy to come in and sort out these little madams once and for all. I know he won’t. I know too, that I can fight my own battles, and his work is just one more gun in my holster.

But I am war weary.

 

Comments
  1. typhonblue says:

    “You see, despite the fact that they were showing their bodies off for our (adult) entertaiment that night, men still have all the power.”

    See, this sounds like a society-wide farce.

    If we repeat it enough, of course it’ll be true!

    BTW, what does she mean by power? Being desired or having something someone else desires is a power. A

  2. I think it’s way more dangerous to talk about the male gaze and the metrosexual gaze, seemingly leaving only men as the gazers and removing agency from women entirely. But then, I haven’t read the book.🙂 I’ll certainly let you know what I think when I do!

  3. Hi Kitty!

    i didn’t say the male gaze or the metrosexual gaze. I said:

    ‘Mark’s latest book, Metrosexy, really puts paid to the myth that there is a male or female gaze. He is interested in how men these days are most interested in looking at themselves and each other, and being looked at by everyone.’

    Women gaze at men a LOT I was talking about men as the OBJECTS of the gaze, as I thought you were too.

  4. I’m referring to this specifically, “Where men looking at women is seen as riddled with power relations, but women looking at men is liberating. As for men looking at each other or themselves? That is not mentioned.”

    Still, you know what? I suggest a compromise, for both of our weariness. Let’s take a month away from arguing back and forth. Come see what I come up with then, and I’ll read “Metrosexy” in the meantime. It may be that we fundamentally disagree on the premise of this project, but I don’t think so- I think we’re saying very similar things in different ways.

    • That was the quickest anyone said we should try having a ‘break’ ever, Kitty!

      Sure, I will see what you come up with. Hope you like Metrosexy. But I am not on any kind of timetable!

      Good luck.

      • Hahahaha! I like what you have to say, and I have to spend some time thinking about my responses, doing some research, and coming up with a firmer foundation. So I’m glad for that! But I want to avoid knee-jerk disagreement, and currently, it seems like that’s what we’re going back and forth with, which is exhausting and not particularly conducive for growth and learning. In my opinion. Obviously, feel free to keep at it if you’d rather. I just think that you’ve JUST made me aware of this book, and you should let me read it and decide if it changes anything I’m doing, rather than continually bringing up things it says as an argument against what I’m doing when I haven’t read it and don’t have that aspect of discourse to engage in.

  5. that is totally fine Kitty. I appreciate you being open to suggestions and reading! I wasn’t planning on keeping on arguing, but I didn’t want to promise to not comment for a month, especially if people come back and say things to/about me that I felt needed a defence/response.

    I will look out some links to sites I like too.

  6. elflojo84 says:

    “So even if they were being objectified in an uncomfortable way for a few hours, it said nothing about the underlying system in place.”

    One of the central tenets of feminism is that “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL”. So how does that square with this statement? This statement is saying almost the exact reverse – that the personal (in this case the impact of a specific relationship on one individual) doesn’t matter in the slightest because the political (that is, the idea that the patriarchy is subjugating women) does not support it. Only the impact which can be seen as supporting the accepted (by feminists) political mindset is relevant on a personal level.

    Of course I do not believe that it is in fact wrong to “objectify”, insofar as the word means anything (let’s say it means “looking at someone mainly for sexual pleasure”), either man or woman. But hypothetically, if she accepts that it is possible for “objectification” to impact negatively on a consenting individual, it is not only hypocritical and bigotted to insist it cannot for certain individuals based on their sex, it is actually contrary to feminism itself (“the personal is the political”)

    “Not necessarily! I talked with my friend Ann about this a little, and we decided we were into it.”

    It’s great isn’t it, if I want to look at sexy naked women purely on the basis that they are sexy naked women, I have to man up and say “yeah, I’m looking at sexy naked women because looking at sexy naked women causes a tingle in my nasty male genitalia and I enjoy that sensation”. A feminist gets to look at sexy naked men, in fact is OBLIGED to look atsexy naked men because in doing so she is ending injustice and destroying the patriarchy! One of the best things feminism did, before it became shit, was allow women to unapologetically be sexual; yet it seems for many modern feminists they never actually got this benefit. They still think it is a bit dirty t obe sexual, so have to invent pseudo-“progressive” edgy political justifications for it. Just enjoy the cock sweetheart. It’s designed to make you happy, and plenty of owners are willing to use it as such.

  7. redpesto says:

    Striker:

    “Not necessarily! I talked with my friend Ann* about this a little, and we decided we were into it. You see, despite the fact that they were showing their bodies off for our (adult) entertaiment that night, men still have all the power.

    What, all of it? Even when, say, you get to be their boss?

    Jeebus, it’s as though some feminist writers have to keep telling themselves this in order to – I dunno – avoid getting horny, or to pretend it’s a bit of fun, or to pretend it’s still 1590 (or whenever) and women didn’t have the right to breathe, or pretend that Michel Foucault is some ‘power dressing’ fashion designer they’ve never heard of.

    And that’s before the ‘we women must behave better’ argument kicks in (cf debates about binge drinking where apparently the ‘feminist’ thing to do is stay sober, because getting hammered on a Friday night is ‘Boys’ Stuff’).

    Aaaargh…

    Actually, this reminds me of the ‘rape fantasies’ in Nancy Friday’s My Secret Garden – the ones where the women imagine themselves being ‘taken’ or ‘overwhelmed’ since then they can relinquish responsibility/deal with their own ambivalence/allow themselves to feel horny without guilt.

    The whole thing wouldn’t be so unusual if some feminists didn’t spend so much energy chewing out those women who want to have more evenings like this.

    Shorter Striker: Feminists discover ‘Clothed Female Naked Male’ porn – but still want to blame the patriarchy for the fact it gets them off.

    • Very sharp comments redpesto.

      But Kitty did not write the review of the Candy Rain party she just included it in her post about her own and related ‘male beauty’ ‘male objectification’ projects.

      I do wish she had at least criticised the review though!

      • Hey, to be fair, I quoted every project without much (if any) personal comment: that’s ANOTHER post (I have a whole thing I’m thinking about on For the Girls, for example).

        If I wrote EVERYTHING I have to say all at once, it wouldn’t be a blog, it’d be a thesis.😛

        RedPesto: I think it’s more accurate to say “we still live in a patriarchy” rather than “men still have all the power”, because I think that’s overly simplistic and doesn’t address things such as race and class.

        Also, I have rape fantasies. Mine aren’t about guilt or shame, though, they’re about playing with mindfuck and fear. So, depends on the woman and her fantasies, no?

        And it’s Stryker, with a y.😉

        • Thats where QRG departs from most feminists. I don’t believe we live in a ‘patriarchy’. I have written about this eg on my post Against Feminisms

          https://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/

          I would not have promoted Candy Rain without some critique. But then I am blocked from Filament’s blog and live journal and twitter. And so my views are a problem for many feminists promoting women’s enjoyment of men’s bodies. But if you write a longer piece I will take a look! Trying to maintain the entente cordiale!

        • elissa says:

          Kitty –
          Before we can determine whether or not we live in a frangole, we need to have a common understanding of what a frangole is, right?

          In the feminist context, and we need to be uber-scholarly on this point, and turn to Wikipedia:

          “As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, “The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.” In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.”

          This is how it is used within feminism. If we can’t agree on this feminist definition, then I’m afraid we’ll be staring down the abyss of a Lacanian worm hole — critiques of the definitions, and critiques of those critiques, of those critiques of the son of those critiques —

          A much more learned opinion is that Patriarchy arose from the original “division” of labor, and that it is not hinged on a dominance and submission model of existence.

          • Thanks elissa. I agree. The dominance/submission myth is very powerful within feminism.

            It annoys me as someone who actually values dominance and submission in themselves.

  8. redpesto says:

    Stryker (apologies for previous mis-spelling):

    RedPesto: I think it’s more accurate to say “we still live in a patriarchy” rather than “men still have all the power”, because I think that’s overly simplistic and doesn’t address things such as race and class.

    But then ‘we still live in a patriarchy’ doesn’t take account of race or class either. I get the point that ‘Men get to do this kind of stuff a lot more than women do because they often have more power/opportunities to do so’, but that’s more of a mouthful to explain.

    Also, I have rape fantasies. Mine aren’t about guilt or shame, though, they’re about playing with mindfuck and fear. So, depends on the woman and her fantasies, no?

    True – but I was drawing on My Secret Garden, which is quite a few years old. Of course, feminism may have helped change things for lots of women so they are much more comfortable with owning their own variations on ‘rape fantasies’.

    @QRG: Yes, I was a bit sharp, and I did think it was one of those ‘don’t post when ticked off’ moments, so I’m sorry if my points were aimed at the wrong target, but I hope at least my points were fair ones.

    • sure redpesto it was fine. It gets a bit confusing when we quote bloggers quoting other writers!

    • elflojo84 says:

      “But then ‘we still live in a patriarchy’ doesn’t take account of race or class either. I get the point that ‘Men get to do this kind of stuff a lot more than women do because they often have more power/opportunities to do so’, but that’s more of a mouthful to explain.”

      That’s exactly the problem with ‘the patriarchy’ as a concept, it is too damn simplistic to explain the world as it really is. And the trouble is it’s far too often used by feminists as be-all-and-end-all; it may, if used wisely and with the appropriate caveats and exceptions clearly stated, be a useful concept as a starting point for discussion, and a minority of the less manic feminists use it this way. The trouble is it is far more commonly used as the ending point of discussion (ie, “Why should women get special preference?”; “Because patriarchy”)- ie instead of starting from a simple point and expanding to account for the complications, it is taking a complicated situation and reducing it to a simple concept which ALWAYS has the same implication – give women special preference. In that context, the term is utter bullshit. And that is the context the term is overwhelmingly used in, therefore in standard usage the term ‘patriarchy’ is utter bullshit. And anyway, even if you start at that concept, once you have expanded the discussion to be talkign about something much more complicated you are not talking about the term you started with, it is meaningless to refer to a concept where the caveats and exceptions are vastly more significant than the original concept. Therefore ‘patriarchy’ doesn’t exist.

      On rape fantasy, I (male) have acted one out myself, as the ‘victim’. I’m generally fairly dominant, as well as being 6’2″ and fairly well built, and she was young, short, and slight, so for me I suppose it was a “role subversion” thing. I’m guessing the psychology is very different the other way round – I’ve never done it properly, but have done plenty of holding wrist, hair tugging etc which simulates it to soem degree as part of normal sex. That tendency is definitely there to some degree in plenty of girls.

  9. I was at the Candy Rain party, and it was intense–crawling with dudes looking to hook up. I hadn’t heard of Candy Rain before I went and was there to meet up with a new friend. However, I “got” immediately where Candy Rain was coming from–the vibe of the text in the mag and the party was very hip hop culture, slightly in the vein of the now defunct Missbehave Magazine. This was a party that played Gillette singing “don’t want no short dick man” next to The Whisper Song. It was about subverting a culture that loudly and proudly objectifies women–hip hop.

    I’m still not sure this is “okay” but it makes more sense, and the tension in “show us your dicks or get the fuck out” also makes more sense, considering where we have been in hip hop culture, and still are.

    I actually wrote about this in an essay on penis size obsession that is coming out today on Alternet, which I interviewed Mark Simpson for. The essay doesn’t go terribly into the female gaze aspect, but I’d love to flesh out my ideas around it more…I like that there is porn for women, but I think we can celebrate male bodies without objectifying them–and to me this should be the goal.

    • Haha well Simpson is a bit of a size queen from what I have heard so you interviewed the right guy!

      That’s interesting context Rachel, thanks! I find this stuff fascinating.

  10. Jim says:

    “That’s exactly the problem with ‘the patriarchy’ as a concept, it is too damn simplistic to explain the world as it really is.”

    It’s worse than that. It’s just misleading. The term that Second Wave feminists were looking for was “andrarchy”, but they were either too illiterate to come up with it, or too enamored of the emotional impact of the term “patriarchy” – this was after all the era of the ascendancy of Madison Avenue – to leave it alone.

    So they used a term that is ridiculous on its face. For anyone with any understanding of the family court system and the way family law has been and generally is administered in the US – and the situation in the UK is at least as bad – the notion that fathers run anything is risible.

    “And the trouble is it’s far too often used by feminists as be-all-and-end-all; it may, if used wisely and with the appropriate caveats and exceptions clearly stated, be a useful concept as a starting point for discussion, and a minority of the less manic feminists use it this way. The trouble is it is far more commonly used as the ending point of discussion (ie, “Why should women get special preference?”; “Because patriarchy”)-”

    That may be the trouble with the term, but surely you can see that that is also the attraction it holds.

    Let’s remember when this terminology developed – in the late 60’s/early 70’s, when the CRM was morphing into the Black Power Movement. Feminism’s development showed the steps of Black Nationalism’s. The rhetoric of the Black Power Movement became more and more explicitly racist. Well, this was a huge problem, because a great deal of the power of the CRM had been moral, so charges of hypocrisy would be crippling. What to do, what to do – I know, let’s define racism as not only a personal moral failing, but more broadly as a characterization of the structure of society. (This works for me be cause of its broad explanatory power by the way; for one thing it explains a lot of “internalized” racism.) But it had the effect of a special for one group to rhetoric that was off limits of others. It institutionalized a very satisfyingly Manichaean division between the Righteous Oppressed and the Wicked Oppressors.

    Second Wave feminism was in many ways parasitic on the Black Nationalist Movement – the buzzword “women and minorities” encoded this – and some of the tensions between WOCs and white feminists dates from this. It was a natural alliance – feminists saw women as an oppressed class, and here was a ready-made paradigm that articulated that, with broad social acceptance built-in. The victimology that feminists inherited from their patriarchal socialization could be rebranded as valid and progressive.

    “- ie instead of starting from a simple point and expanding to account for the complications, it is taking a complicated situation and reducing it to a simple concept which ALWAYS has the same implication – give women special preference.”

    Yeah, well people love reductionist bullshit. It gives them the illusion of having a grasp in the situation. It’s a problem with all kinds of political discourse and on a mass scale, it may even be acceptable. But it’s not acceptable to mistake it for analysis or reasoned opinion.

  11. Vic says:

    I agree men’s descriptions of their sex lives are limited due to the stigma around men’s sexuality.

    What stigma?

    • well if especially hetero men show openly their enjoyment of e.g. porn, or chasing women, they get labelled as ‘dirty dogs’. Look at slutwalks there has been a lot of talk about how men looking at women without their consent is ‘harassment’.

  12. elissa says:

    Nice historical background Jim.

    On a somewhat lighter note – I’ve recently overheard some rude young men, using the pretense of the “slut walk” phenomenon, trying to socialize with some pretty young women, by asking if they were on their way to a slut walk. The women took offense. They were not on their way to a slut walk. It was a case of mistaken identity!

      • elflojo84 says:

        Well presumably all the Slut Walks have worked, the word slut has been “reclaimed” and is now a perfectly acceptable, even complimentary, term in any cricumstances right? So if they’d wished, the boys could have juse said “Hey! Are you girls sluts?”

  13. Jim says:

    “I agree men’s descriptions of their sex lives are limited due to the stigma around men’s sexuality.
    What stigma?”

    Vic, here are a few to start you off:

    1. The presumption of male sexual aggression:
    a. when equal-aged minors engage in sex, typically only he male is ever charged with statutory rape.
    b. in cases where a grown woman has sex with a male minor (statutory) it is not unknown for the
    male rather than the female to be charged.
    c. In cases where both persons are drunk, it is only ever the man who is considered the rapist.

    2. Unwanted sexual atention froma man is creepy, threatening, etc (quite rightly). unwanted sexual attention from a woman,….well, there is no such thing. Sexual attention from a woman is just good luck. What’s wrong with you? Are calling the lady unattractive?

    3. The presumtion of pedophilia. Any adult male atention or care of small children comes under immediate suspicion.

    That’s a just a quick list. Maybe other people can help with with some more.

    • elflojo84 says:

      There’s the obvious orientation one, ie although “full” homosexuality of both stripes is broadly accepted it’s still less accepted for a man to be bi-curious or experiment.

      We do not get to “celebrate” our sexuality like Cosmo readers do, we just get to fuck.

      It’s not stigma per se, but our “jobs” in terms of courtship are MUCH harder … we pretty much always have to make the first move, and have to walk the fine line between being the instigator, being confident (nothing less likely to get you laid than being timid) but not being a “creep”. And the fact is a guy on the slightly overly aggressive side of ideal has far more success than a guy on the slightly too timid side.

      • elflojo84 says:

        I almost forgot – for some women, the difference between female and male sexualities is summed up thusly…

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/17/tanya-gold-stripping?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

        PS can anyone tell me how to do italics and bold and ting?

        • billsnshits says:

          http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php
          http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp

          you open and close tags. ……

          So it’s now more okay to scream “SLUUUUUUUT!” than it is to say “nice dress”? groovy!
          this’ll make it a lot harder for women to tell the aggressive sperm from the polite and gentle.
          goog luck ladies! uh, bitches! uh…sluts! (which puts us into menz rights seduction training territory)

          One thing that just struck me, the asexuality of women who want to celebrate their sexuality, at least in this case. When something gets you hot and puts the focus on you in a way that isn’t “jokey” , you don’t generally encourage everyone to do it as publicly as possible.
          And I can’t help but think that either yourself or others calling you a slut zeros in, gets blood rushing to, your crotch.

          While men can be horny without having to name themselves with words, they’re always just assumed to be horny, which gives verbal discretion.

          Calling yourself a slut publicly suggests either that you don’t really feel your libido, so it never feels like strangers tickling your privates, it never gets you flustered. Or that you really do feel it and you LOVE IT! Which gets me thinking that “they’re asking for it”, after all!
          And while the rest of the world has evolved, I now feel like I’m back in the rapist-sympathizer, chauvinistic cop camp.

          Dang.

  14. redpesto says:

    Jim: Feminism’s development showed the steps of Black Nationalism’s. The rhetoric of the Black Power Movement became more and more explicitly racist

    I’d challenge the use of ‘racist’. Rather, it’s ‘essentialism’ that is the common feature to both lines of thought. There’s a long history of essentialist claims to ‘blackness’ (e.g. the Negritude movement) as a response to racist or colonialist oppression. Likewise with certain strands of feminism that want to (re)claim a ‘true’ female identity, while conveniently ignoring De Beauvoir’s maxim that ‘one is not born a woman, one becomes one’ or ignoring the possibility that the very ‘female’ qualities being laid claim to are ones which patriarchy may have encouraged in the first place.

  15. Jim says:

    “I’d challenge the use of ‘racist’.”

    I’ll go further; it was just the wrong word. But I couldn’t find the word I was actually looking for. I meant racially biogoted, tribalist, and that subsumes “essentialist”. And I do mean tribalist; I used to say I was waiting for the neo-Nazis to sue the Afrocentrists for plagiarism. “Racist” as you and I seem to agree it means is too useful in that meaning to strecth it out of shape.

    The essentialist, tribalist tendency you see in some feminism seems to me to be the animating energy behind radical feminism. It feels like an emotional reaction – to trauma? – that gets translated into an ideological position.

    You see some of this in the MRM, although it is dying out as the blogs that are catching fire ban people who express it (AVfM), and the blogs that pander to it die out (Manhood 101).

  16. Vic says:

    well if especially hetero men show openly their enjoyment of e.g. porn, or chasing women, they get labelled as ‘dirty dogs’.

    I see what you’re saying, though that’s not a stigma. It’s chiding. Guys who chase women and score get respect. The real stigma is the ‘slut’ label. That’s why the slutwalk is about reappropriating the word ‘slut’.

  17. Vic says:

    . Look at slutwalks there has been a lot of talk about how men looking at women without their consent is ‘harassment’.

    That won’t go anywhere, however, I have heard of that. It’s called look-rape. No, I am not kidding. It’s when a woman has been looked at and it causes her self-esteem to lower; she can call it rape and press charges. But I can’t see that making law.

  18. Jim says:

    “I see what you’re saying, though that’s not a stigma. It’s chiding. Guys who chase women and score get respect. ”

    Being called “creepy” is stigma, not chiding. Being assumed always to be the sexual aggressor regardless of the evidence is stigma, and it is systemic and institutional oppression when it skews the criminal justice system.
    \
    As for respect, it’s not some free-floating substance, it comes for specific people. Peers might respect this behavior, others might deride it. “Pussy hound” and “ladies’ man” are not exactly fawning adoration. Of course it is culture-dependent; in some cultures being a player is the peak of manly achievement. In other cultures, it’s considered effeminate.

    • billsnshits says:

      What if the whole schism between feminism-bots and males is that the feminism-bots don’t realize that it hurts?

      I guess all they needed was a “if you prick us do we not bleed?” sermon and they’d stop calling men spooky predators and harassers so casually.

      Is this possible? Could it be that a sense of “those men can take it” is what allows professional or activist western feminism to rail against every inappropriate male signal of lust and claim that those little signals are both cause and effect of general oppression of women by boys-club-industry?
      Usually the feminist “anti-horndog” stance tries to condemn any romance where the male is even slightly haughty, or supercilious or dismissive or edgy or poorly rhythmed/timed (staring is one example). They don’t condemn men asking for a date if it’s done quickly, once and only to a stranger (sort of like going around handing out flyers or business cards but even more discreetly than a street marketeer would be). They don’t condemn buying flowers for your belle (although they do condemn presenting flowers to a stranger or especially a colleague as excessively “woo-ey” and hence aggressive).
      They condemn aggression and oppression. But so many little things have a tinge of aggression/oppression that if you go after aggression/oppression itself, you wind up going after everything, right into private words and bedroom games.
      When you predicate everything on a victim/oppressor paradigm, it removes the guilt of attacking the oppressor, since they hold all the power.
      I can’t tell if the non-oppressor male sense of victimhood in this ideological game of rhetoric and laws comes from a sense that he can’t trust “women” not to resent/find disgusting “his lust”. OR from his fear that she’ll call the cops, supervisor, human resources committee and force him to face his own individual impotence when battling a group (of bobbies, of administrators, of paycheck danglers).

      So perhaps feminism-bots simply “forgot” about that non oppressor, to instead focus on the boss that goes around butt fucking and beating female employees on demand, the committee that never hires women (composed of both sexes) because it assumes that women aren’t “tough/competent” enough to do a man’s job, the conservative factions of womenStayHomeAndCookYourChildren and IfYouWantSexYouCantHaveAbortions.

      And he’s just hapless in the chaos, our sweet little man who daren’t be a little wild for fear of massive social reprisal.
      I wonder about the purple haired boy in this clip from a slutwalk parade, who flinches and shudders off a couple steps, when smacked (brutalized, really) with a slutwalks sign. It’s right around the 1:30 mark.

      Have you ever seen a sweeter bit of nerd? I think he’s utterly adorable, if a little toothless.
      And yet he’s accused along with Mike Tyson on his worst dates or some Taliban family patriarch or mass-marriage american west polygamist keeping a stable of 13 year old girls as wives who are barely literate, sequestered in his house.
      What about poor dear purple nerd boy? What do the feminists say about HIM? Tread upon and Left behind by their simplistic slogan-based politics.

      But then, to see him as pure victim is to accept his own prejudice that all women are one/feminists and that he has something to fear from all women-feminists. And we’ve just flipped the problem. Or doubled it.

      • elflojo84 says:

        “I guess all they needed was a “if you prick us do we not bleed?” sermon and they’d stop calling men spooky predators and harassers so casually.”

        It’s a lovely sentiment, but really all you’re saying is “WHATABOUTTHEMENZ?????!!!!!!!!!!!!”

  19. billsnshits says:

    anyone else think that the reporter is one of , if not the, hottest chicks in that parade, even though she’s dressed as bland and uptight as can be?
    And anyone else notice that the topless fat man in the parade, waving his melons, seems more “into” his hedonic sluttiness than the women? It’s as if male bodily pleasure and exhibitionism is NATURAL while for women, it may be a forced construct, after all.

  20. billsnshits says:

    So to make myself even more opaque,
    calling men “dirty dogs” depends on the context.

    Hanging out with friends (including women) and being called a “doity dawg” by those women or men would be chiding encouragement (or encouraging chiding). I suspect the boyz in the pah-tay up in that photo, called each other quite a few things worse than “doity dawgz”, constantly.

    Having a glance or mentioning something sexual in a less familiar context (uptight professionalism or uncertain public space), then being considered a “dirty dog” and held under silent suspicion, where a female’s similar behavior or comment would be greeted as a harmless hypothetical, even a bit spicy and amusing, is certainly not chiding. And the hysterics from menz responding to condemnation is in reference to that context of “dirty dog” label.

    • billsnshits says:

      And If you find that contextual distinction dubious, just examine, next time and any time you see it, how feminists, journalists, feminist journalists and women in general now speak of “appropriate” and inappropriate sexual behavior. They no longer feel or use the speech of ultra puritan “playboy magazines means this guy is an oppressive pervert”, they just take it for granted that men are sexual, have weird perversions..and should just leave all that stuff at home when they walk out the door. The following types of phrases are ubiquitous: “to walk the street free of harassment/leering/obnoxious sex” or “we all like sex, but we of course want to try and keep sex out of the workplace as much as possible” or “women naturally enjoy male attention, but it’s stupid of them to invite it, especially if they’re younger and have a career/future/reputation-that-will-haunt-them/blowback-from-adults-due-to-their-age to consider”.

      So men’s dirty doggery is accepted, even approved of with token praise, but condemned if it ever “rears its ugly head”. It’s always assumed to be unwanted by default (the exception, the surprise, is that the rare bird enjoyed his antics). And even where the girls were cheering on for it, feminism and its supporters will tend to be “iffy”, casting sympathetic, condescending aspersions on the women who “encouraged bad behavior in men, though we understand why they did it”.

  21. billsnshits says:

    Can I be an asshole for a moment? Of course I can, until I get blocked.

    “I am tired of going over to blogs and getting into arguments, or blocked and ignored as I often am.”

    Well, maybe all you need to do is add an angle that isn’t part of your current viewpoint. Then you won’t seem like such a jack hammer. For awhile. And then you’ll have to branch out and enrich yet again. You can set out your calendar on dosages of new additional themes.

    Ever heard the phrase “try an alternative approach to solve a stubborn problem”?

  22. […] Riot Girl (whose blog I don’t know well) has an interesting post talking about one woman’s review of a launch party for a female-oriented magazine featuring […]

  23. mythago says:

    “The male gaze” doesn’t mean it’s ok for women to ogle but not men; it refers to the concept that men are supposed to be the ‘lookers’ and women are supposed to be the objects of desire. It’s less true culturally than it used to be, but are you really saying that doesn’t exist?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s