You are probably aware of the "Me Too" campaign currently trending on social media, in which women are supposed to post those words as a hashtag to show that they've been subject to sexual harassment. I'm surprised at how little sympathy it is eliciting in my heart. People who have long read Grim's Hall know that I am the sort of man who sometimes is sympathetic to women's suffering. This time, though, I'm not feeling very moved at all.
It is because, I realize, these same people who are "Me Too"ing all over the place are the ones who have been chiding me and my culture for my entire life for our relationship to women. I come from a culture of ritual courtesies between the sexes. Women are "ma'am" from the time they are toddlers until they die. Strange men are "sir." Doors get held open. Chairs get pulled out. And all I ever hear, these last decades, is how this kind of formal courtesy is demeaning. It puts women on a pedestal, it doesn't take them seriously as human beings, it sets up 'power relationships' that get analyzed to death. These expressions of respect that my culture engages in are supposed to be canonical expressions of Patriarchy and the oppression of women. It's the whole thing that had to be destroyed, and they've been at the work of destroying it hammer and tongs for decades.
So now they want me to feel their pain about the rude and aggressive behaviors they find themselves subject to? Well, I don't harass anyone. I don't endure it in my presence. I was trained that way as much by my mother as by my father, who had been taught by their parents, as their parents before them. This latest round only hardens my convictions that they were right all along. Those who went about breaking the world my ancestors made are reaping what they sewed and, if they want to reap otherwise, they'd better think about changing what they're planting.
50 comments:
For me it's the tone deafness of launching this after the revelations of Weinstein's behavior. The tag campaign was apparently timed for the anniversary of the drop of the Trump-Billy Bush hot mic tape. I don't know if Weinstein's sacrifice was similarly scheduled but it makes terrible optics for anyone not a true believer. A big Democrat donor and supporter gets a pass on his private behavior for years because he says the right things in public and writes checks payable to the right people, until he's judged to be expendable.
Women may indeed, get harassed more often, and with greater intensity. But I have worked my entire career in female-dominated power structures and still regularly get subjected to public commentary that would get a main fired if the situation were reversed. In social work and in nursing, it is career-affecting. Just is. It's not a bad life and I don't have much need to complain despite the nastiness. But I don't like it when a generalised victim card is played. I also think this is part of a designed effort to take everyone's attention off the fact that sexual assault is much, much worse, by putting this into an "it happens everywhere, so stop focusing on liberal scandals" distraction.
I have also been harassed for being Christian, for being white, and for not being liberal. Nothing deadly. Just a little public shaming here and there.
The idea that there's an immutable spectrum that stretches between courtly gallantry one end and sexual exploitation on the other doesn't do much for me.
The "me too" women make me a little tired mostly because I think they need to sort out in their own heads whether their sexual response is for sale. If it's not, all they have to continue worrying about is whether a guy can be trusted not to employ physical violence.
I still say that those bent on undermining the cultural structures and institutions set up to control bad behavior ought not to then complain about the resulting eruption of bad behavior. It's the 'have mercy on me for killing my parents, because I'm an orphan' defense.
It's probably not a coincidence that many of the worst offenders are also great artists: the erotic drive can also be channeled into art. Clearly that's not enough, however. Maybe in some cases nothing is enough. But for a great many ordinary people, there seems to be some adequate set of channeling institutions to control the bad behavior. If you break those institutions down, well, you'll see more of the erotic drive expressed badly than in the channeled modes.
I still say that those bent on undermining the cultural structures and institutions set up to control bad behavior ought not to then complain about the resulting eruption of bad behavior.
Here's why I don't agree with this formulation: I am older than you, Grim. And I was raised with the same set of mores.
And I can guarantee you that they didn't prevent predatory jerks from pestering and even having an entitled mentality that it was their job to make advances to women and (for many) entirely within their reasonable expectations that women would give in if pestered forcefully enough.
IOW, your culture and mores didn't prevent this sort of thing any more than today's does. It just didn't, period. IMO, things were actually worse then.
The best they did was reward good men for defending women against bad men. But sadly, good men aren't and weren't always around when the bad men were doing what they do best.
Women are going to have to decide how they're going to respond to this stuff. Are we fragile flowers who need to be defended at all times? If so, we can never go anywhere alone, lest we run into a bad man with no good man around to defend us. That's most of the Muslim world, and it ain't a good model.
Or are we reasonably intelligent, independent human beings who can take responsibility for our own defense? If so, then we need to honestly confront both our limitations (physical, emotional, cultural) and our own, often contradictory sexual impulses. Since we are physically weaker, there will be times when we avoid situations and places where that matters.
You know, just like smaller men do every single day. It's called situational awareness :p And if we are honest enough to admit that - like men - our sex drives and emotions aren't always rational, we need to act accordingly. Don't get drunk, don't hook up with strangers, don't send misleading/contradictory signals.
What we CAN'T do is demand that the world treat us like reasonably intelligent, independent human beings with agency and free will, then act like entitled, fragile flowers who must be protected :p
To Tex's point, a (to-me) amusing little anecdote from before the election.
I was driving to an event with my neighbor, and we were talking about how we really did not like either Clinton or Trump. I listed all the reasons I could never vote for Hillary.
And she responded with the Access Hollywood thing about Trump as a reason she didn't want to vote for him.
I responded that that comment, though I find it quite personally distasteful, absolutely paled by comparison with Bill Clinton's actions and the actions of many prominent/famous men. Then I observed that when you parsed that comment, it wasn't *quite* as bad as it initially sounded.
It it's actually true (as opposed to braggadocio) that Trump was in the habit of walking up to women he did not know and grabbing them by the hoo-ha/kissing them, then his treatment of women is boorish to say the least, bordering on criminal. The thing is, I don't think he meant that literally.
Just my 2 cents, but what I heard in that comment was amazement that some women would allow such familiarities. And it seems they do. I further pointed out that in the entertainment industry, women use their sexuality and physical assets as leverage. As Tex observed, decide whether what you're so freely offering is really up for sale, and act accordingly.
My neighbor thought about this for a moment and then admitted using her ample cleavage to disconcert/influence men on occasion. Such honesty is why I like her.
One final comment, to Grim's formulation.
In the late 70s/early 80s, I was a married mother entering the work force. As such, I was regularly propositioned and hit on by men at work. I did not dress provocatively and I did nothing to imply I would welcome their advances.
I got quite tired of saying, "I'm happily married (as you know from my ring finger) and I DO NOT CHEAT ON MY HUSBAND." I also got quite tired of removing some jerk's hand from my derriere with disturbing regularity.
In middle school, I actually hit several boys who tried to grope me in shop class or in the hallways. I gave one of them a huge bruise that he proudly showed off for weeks. He also apologized to me and never tried that again.
I believe such treatment is actually far less frequent than it once was, and that's a good thing. Current culture strongly shames unwanted advances, IMO, *better* than the one I grew up in. It does other things far worse, and in general I do agree we're blurring the lines too much and exposing both sexes to situations that tend not to end well. Witness the uber outrage over Pence not inviting women to dinner.
I can't say much about what things were like before I was old enough to know, of course. Separately, it is a well-known fact about these sorts of incidents that the kind of men who do them don't do them around men like me. I have almost never observed sexual harassment of a woman, because the men around me understand that there will be consequences to engaging in it.
More than that, I clearly make it known to the women that I can be approached about such conduct if they need or want advice or help resolving it. Unprompted, numerous women have come to me in my lifetime for such help, and have received it. Others who have been reported to me as having been subject to such treatment have, when I discreetly inquired if they wanted to talk about it, preferred to handle the business themselves. I respect that preference and honor their wishes; having heard from them that they want to settle it privately, I won't let a third party talk to me about it.
All that said, it seems to me that producing men who behave this way is a part of the solution. It's not as if the alternative model proffered is doing a good job of correcting the issue. It produces men who signal the right way, but behave the wrong way.
Indeed, when I was a boy, Woody Allen was said to be the very model of what a New Man should look like. Well, he certainly knew how to seem the right way in public. So did Joss Whedon, and the rest of them. But what you really want isn't seeming fair but being foul, as Aragorn and Samwise discussed in the Prancing Pony. It's better the other way around.
Separately, it is a well-known fact about these sorts of incidents that the kind of men who do them don't do them around men like me. I have almost never observed sexual harassment of a woman, because the men around me understand that there will be consequences to engaging in it.
...which is why I had to put up with this sort of nonsense - no good men were around.
The point here being, ...and so I learned to deal with it all by my lonesome!
Aggression of one sort or another is universal. People attack where they perceive their victims to be weakest. This stuff really isn't unique to women, and my point was more that - if women don't want to exist in purdah, only go out wearing burkas, or only go out in the company of men, they need to learn to deal with it.
Just like men have to learn to deal with aggression and bullying from other men. And occasionally, women!
I don't agree that it's better for most women to rely on others to protect them. I think it's best for women to figure out how to protect themselves, avoid situations where they really are out of their depth, etc.
Finally, I think good men are still there, and still willing to help a woman in legitimate distress. That has been my experience, anyway. Where I expect we disagree is on the questions of (1) how effective the old system was at correcting the problem of sexually aggressive men, and (2) whether it's better for women to take responsibility for their own safety or rely on someone who may not be there at the right time to do it for them.
In general, I think it's better to stand on my own two feet, but if I ever needed a good man to back me up, I would never scorn a helping hand :)
For all the previous model's (male-female interactions) flaws, if it failed to prevent egregious action on the part of a man, the resulting stigma and shame was a logical and automatic response from other men.
That will not last when you have younger generations of men raised on two contradictory stories of what women are. I see this already with young men's reactions to the Weinstein story - "its not harassment or assault if the woman took the job afterwards, its just prostitution".
Berate a young man for hours on end (in both school and the military) that females are his equal, interchangeable with any other man for any task, yet also tell him he can't talk the same when they are present, can't joke the same way with them as with another guy, and his very presence and even existence is an affront to her independence, sense of self, and empowerment and then wonder why young men don't have a great deal of respect for women anymore. Add in blatant male-female double standards as the military has and you compound the hostility.
This will only get worse, and it is entirely the feminists' own creation.
I respect a woman who can take care of herself, and many prefer to do so. On the other hand, sometimes a little help can be compelling.
Part 1 - response to Krag. For all the previous model's (male-female interactions) flaws, if it failed to prevent egregious action on the part of a man, the resulting stigma and shame was a logical and automatic response from other men.
IF they even found out about it, AND there happened to be a man who would stand up. And the woman was in their 'in group' (men and women are both more likely to defend those in their group and can be incredibly callous towards outsiders). Not all men are brave/noble. Not all men were willing to stand up for a woman they didn't have a strong connection with. I remember a pretty strong "Well, she must've been asking for it" vibe when I was growing up that attached to a woman who complained of being sexually assaulted. There was also a pretty strongly expressed belief that this sort of thing only happened to "bad girls". Blaming the victim is nothing new.
That will not last when you have younger generations of men raised on two contradictory stories of what women are. I see this already with young men's reactions to the Weinstein story - "its not harassment or assault if the woman took the job afterwards, its just prostitution".
I've heard conservative men say that sort of thing often on conservative blogs. One of the most disturbing and surprising things about blogging was being exposed to so many men who - on the one hand - expressed chivalrous ideals, but also had some very ugly ideas about women that shocked and upset me. That transactional view of sex-as-commerce is often expressed to me by older, traditional men. Many believe women "trade" sex for security - that's a fairly mainstream conservative idea. My husband, sons, and male friends/family members don't talk that way, but a sadly large number of traditional/conservative men absolutely do.
Berate a young man for hours on end (in both school and the military) that females are his equal, interchangeable with any other man for any task, yet also tell him he can't talk the same when they are present, can't joke the same way with them as with another guy, and his very presence and even existence is an affront to her independence, sense of self, and empowerment and then wonder why young men don't have a great deal of respect for women anymore. Add in blatant male-female double standards as the military has and you compound the hostility.
This, I agree with 100%!
Part II
I'm not sure most men ever had a lot of respect for women. I don't think most men have a lot of respect for other men either. People who can't be dominated get more respect than those who don't know how to stand up for themselves. The traditional women-on-pedestal teaching was somewhat effective in tempering natural male aggressiveness. We're smaller and less assertive, so if you teach men to value those attributes and protect us, they are reminded that they're stronger and you bring out their noble side. But it doesn't work well on bad men. Or weak men. Or men raised by wolves.
Or men whose fathers are jerks.
And there's a price - you also get men who truly believe women aren't terribly competent or intelligent. Who think, "She's just a woman - she can't be expected to balance a checkbook or understand foreign policy." Most men don't want to be protected at the expense of their dignity and self respect and autonomy. I don't want that. But a big part of the traditional model encourages men to think women are 'wired' that way.
That said, I don't want to do away with the voluntary specialization that makes male/female partnerships like marriage work so well. There are things my husband is just better at than I am. Some, I can also do, but it's not efficient for me to do so. And that works in reverse - some things he can do are simply easier/more natural for me than for him. Why not harness comparative advantage and make us both better off?
This will only get worse, and it is entirely the feminists' own creation.
This is where we'll have to disagree. Male dislike of/disrepect for/distrust of women has been around since Adam and Eve. I am no fan of feminism, but it didn't create this problem. It has made many things worse, and some better. But human nature, like that jackwagon Fauxcahontas, persists :p
Can I just make one final observation? Grim earlier said something I think is dead on:
I have almost never observed sexual harassment of a woman, because the men around me understand that there will be consequences to engaging in it.
I hear conservative men argue - often - that if we'd just go back to "the old ways", problems that have existed since the dawn of time would somehow magically be erased.
I don't find that convincing at all. Sexual harassment of women, in my personal experience, has gotten better (not worse) with time. Women unwisely putting themselves in situations they seem unable to handle is one consequence of that - moral hazard, if you will. They are surprised and shocked when they encounter behavior that was commonplace in my youth in "the good old days".
The moral panic over supposed college rape is a great example of this. Actual college rape is comparatively rare. No one would send their daughter to college if 1 in 5 women were actually being raped. And so they go all uber-outragey about regrettable sex and boorish behavior I knew how to handle - from experience! - by the age of 12 or 13. We're creating a generation of snowflakes with no social skills (something that applies to and harms both young men and young women).
/climbing painfully off my soapbox :p
I never let men harass me, not even when I was very young, so that part hasn't changed for me at all. I do much prefer the atmosphere today, where I can attend a board meeting without devoting even a moment's wasted time to dealing with gender issues. If the guys have any problem with my competence or dominance, they keep it to themselves these days. That was only beginning to be true when I was first leaving college. I find it much easier than when I was young to be taken at face value and to be judged simply on my performance.
I'm very grateful to my husband, who has never given me a moment's uneasiness on these subjects. He didn't resent my paycheck, for instance; he always seemed to like it. It was good fortune for both of us, not a competition. Although he's very conservative on most subjects, he always knew better than to condescend to me. I've never seen him condescend to any woman, or if he did, it wasn't because of her gender. THat's not to say that he can't be deeply irritating by the sillier varieties of modern feminism, but then, so can I. No one likes a professional victim.
I am open to the argument that I'm reacting somewhat tribally here -- AVI talks about that sort of thing often. One way to be sure to get on the bad side of almost anyone is to paint their tribe, culture, etc., as a problem we wish we could be rid of. It could be that, when it was stronger, the goods it provided were more limited than I am inclined to believe. I think it provided more good men to create spaces in which bad men weren't free to operate; but perhaps it did little more than that.
On the other hand, the basic argument I've been forwarding is one that has a good pedigree in conservative circles. Human nature's drives to seek pleasure and avoid pain can lead to bad behavior; social institutions and cultural mores are crafted to channel those drives, including eros, in less-bad directions. I think the ritual courtesies served a purpose in channeling erotic energy into displays of respect instead of displays of lust. Of course, they also functioned to provide a baseline of respect between the sexes even when eroticism wasn't particularly present; my mother taught her granddaughter to expect to be called 'ma'am' in part because it set that granddaughter's expectations about being spoken to respectfully even by authority figures who were correcting her. (So too the judge, who addresses the prisoner being sentenced as "Mister Jones" or "Miss Allen" or whatever; never by their first name only, never by an insult.)
So, perhaps my irritation comes from tribalism; but I think there's a valid argument standing there, too.
I guess I'm just saying that, however awry the feminist movement may have gone, the world is a lot easier for me to live in than it used to be under the more traditional system. I could handle it even then, but it was no picnic, and I don't miss it.
Grim,
If I may, I'd like to point out that I think there's a parallel of what you are drawing exception to with the idea of gun control, and that may put things in some perspective. I would like to stress, however, that the metaphor is imperfect as I generally find gun control to be well meaning, but poorly thought out as a solution to the problem it seeks to remedy. I make no such judgments about this topic, as I find the experience of the ladies of the Hall compelling evidence that it might be of value.
Gun control advocates want more laws restricting what firearms may be legally purchased and owned (and thus what may be misused in order to victimize others). So too in this way are the modern feminists advocating for "masculine control" in that their objective is to stop bad men from victimizing women. And to do this, they attack "traditional masculinity" which they see as the common weapon used. What you believe is that "traditional masculinity" (or chivalry if you prefer) is a weapon used to protect others from bad men; much in the same way a gun is used to protect others from criminals and those who would victimize others. The point being that both sides are, in effect, correct. Bad men do use the societal and physical advantages they have over women to victimize them. And good men used to be encouraged to use the societal and physical advantages they have over women to protect them. But in an effort to exert control over those societal and physical advantages (in order to reduce victimization), they are also negatively impacting the ability of good men to use those advantages to protect women.
Now here's where I stray out of my lane and suggest a course of action to someone else. I believe that (much like as with guns it is better to be judged by twelve men than carried by six) it is better to use chivalric behavior to protect and serve women regardless of any social opprobrium they may throw at you for doing so. Self-sacrifice in service of others, after all, is no vice. So basically, while some may not want or appreciate your use of chivalric behavior, you are using it properly to help preserve social order against bad actors when you are present (as it was meant to do).
Meanwhile, as the ladies of the Hall will attest, some good has come of the societal changes "masculine control" (forgive the phrase please, I don't have a good shorthand for this) has brought about. And I believe I know you well enough to know that you are pleased that the ladies of the Hall are treated better today than in the past, regardless of the reason. So let them have the best of both worlds. Protect women as you (and I) were taught, treat them with the respect which you always have, and when it occurs that someone snaps at you for holding a door or other polite gesture, then simply count that as a cost of providing them a better world where bad men are even more afraid to act badly even if you're not around.
I agree with much of what you say, Mike, but I have this reservation.
The "best of both worlds" concept always makes me think of a price tag: "Sure, you can live in this society without being physically brutalized every time you venture out unarmed or without a substantial bodyguard, but the cost is that you've got to wear a corset and give up any idea of making a living or running for office." I don't think it's expecting a great deal of a complex civilized society for it to be possible for women to do both, any more than it's impossible for, say, a wheelchair-bound man to do both. It can't all be about the problem that most women are not equal to most men in hand-to-hand combat. Lots of people aren't going to come out on top in the average street rumble, but we don't find it all that difficult to arrange things so that they can have ordinary, independent adult lives. Isn't that what law and order are largely about?
I grant you that strong, potentially violent chivalric men are a mainstay of the societal forces that make it possible for ordinary people to walk on the street unmolested by ruffians, but they're not all alone in this task. They are helped by any citizen who is willing to stand up to bullies on behalf of anyone weaker than themselves, or able to band together to keep the occasional rogue in check. We don't have to sort the human race into two teams--the protectors and the clients--then put the clients on a permanent footing of subordinance or limited opportunity in areas not specifically associated with physical strength. There are other, more flexible, more civilized ways of taking into account the fact that adults in all walks of public life come in a wide variety of fistfight readiness.
So, as a woman, do I expect something unfair like "the best of both worlds" when I live publicly, independently, and in positions of power and influence while knowing that physically stronger people will instinctively come to my defense if I'm physically bullied? Sure, and for me that's an essential benefit of civilization, equally enjoyed by many man, and rightly so. How else should it be? One reason we opt for civilization is that it's a win-win, on the whole, not just a sacrifice by one group for the benefit of another.
I've always thought that Charles Murray hit this one out of the park. I happen to agree with Grim that the culture I grew up with had many virtues that I mourn the loss of now. And I agree that in general, it tended to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.
But there were aspects of that culture that I do NOT mourn one bit, too. To me, it's not a question of there being one system that was well-nigh perfect and another that confers no benefits to anyone, anywhere. My sense is that the ritual courtesies (as Grim calls them - nice turn of phrase!) were very much a veneer. And that veneer had value - you could compare it to surface tension on water. Not an absolute barrier, but one that required extra effort to break. A deterrent, rather than a brick wall. And the flip side of having a higher standard of courtesy was that withholding that courtesy was like a slap in the face, often used to put someone in their place.
It's also my sense that one reason that veneer existed was that overall, people felt more danger then. There was more of a sense that civilization was fragile. Now, I believe most people are complacent. They don't fear the absence of civil norms - we take the relative peace and prosperity we know for granted and have little awareness of the chaos that lurks just under the surface. When chaos erupts, liberals blame "the system" rather than human nature. Conservatives tend to blame culture and want to restore order and hierarchy. Though I tend to the latter interpretation, I think there's a bit of blindness in both world views. They are blind to moral hazard; we tend to be blind to the human tendency to abuse authority/power.
From what I can see, the upper classes haven't been hurt as much by the erosion in morals and manners. But the effect on less well-to-do folks (what used to be called the 'lower classes' when I was a kid) has been devastating. Marriages and stable families aren't - or shouldn't be - a luxury good.
Like Tex, I see both good and bad in today's standards. Human nature is like water - we can put barriers in its way but it tends to flow around them. The best we can do is divert the stream in our preferred direction, but someone's always going to get wet.
Good discussion, Grim!
Bad men do use the societal and physical advantages they have over women to victimize them. And good men used to be encouraged to use the societal and physical advantages they have over women to protect them. But in an effort to exert control over those societal and physical advantages (in order to reduce victimization), they are also negatively impacting the ability of good men to use those advantages to protect women.
Wow, Mike. You nailed what I was struggling to articulate.
This is what I meant about human nature being like water, but you said it so much more clearly than I. Thank you.
Also loved this, from Tex:
I grant you that strong, potentially violent chivalric men are a mainstay of the societal forces that make it possible for ordinary people to walk on the street unmolested by ruffians, but they're not all alone in this task. They are helped by any citizen who is willing to stand up to bullies on behalf of anyone weaker than themselves, or able to band together to keep the occasional rogue in check. We don't have to sort the human race into two teams--the protectors and the clients--then put the clients on a permanent footing of subordinance or limited opportunity in areas not specifically associated with physical strength. There are other, more flexible, more civilized ways of taking into account the fact that adults in all walks of public life come in a wide variety of fistfight readiness.
Most of civilization is an attempt to channel conflicts into nonviolent expression. As we evolve, the balance points are always shifting and we haven't gotten it right yet.
I am happy that blacks can walk into a business and not be told, "Whites only". I am happy that my daughters in law have opportunities I did not, and that my grandchildren have fathers who change diapers and play as big a part in rearing their children as their mothers. I'm happy that my sons have a better balance between hard work and the joys of family life than my husband was ever allowed, or my Dad, or my father in law. These things are vast improvements on the world I grew up in.
There are tradeoffs, though.
Also, there are many kinds of bullying besides straightforward physical violence. I'm bright enough to rob my neighbors blind, but something has to stop me. I hope what stops me is not a contract between me and my neighbors that amounts to my saying, "I agree not to take advantage of you intellectually, and even to step in if I see someone else trying to do so. In return, you have to kowtow to me in various ways not directly associated with financial fraud. If you refuse, you are both ungrateful and inconsistent."
My autonomy is not for sale any more than my sexual response is. I'll certainly trade all kinds of cooperation for mutual security, physical and otherwise, and I acknowledge a duty to sacrifice for people in many situations even if they aren't likely to reciprocate. At a minimum, I have a duty to do right by them, as in refraining from exploiting them by violence or subterfuge. They don't "owe" me anything for that, certainly nothing that would lead me to say, with any justice, that (if they don't "pay") they're trying to have the best of both worlds in the sense of having their cake and eating it too. If I stood up for someone who was being financially defrauded, then expected him to defer to me in other walks of life as a kind of tacit pact, I'd expect him to throw my "service" back in my teeth. That's not how we should be interacting with people we respect and care for.
And all this is a complicated way of saying why sometimes I'd rather just politely decline when a man wants to walk around the car and open my door for me, or pick up the tab for dinner. There's so much baggage that can be attached, sadly. So I don't miss that part at all, at all. It always felt like rather a minefield.
Nevertheless, I don't make a big deal of insulting men who offer me small courtesies. If I think I can trust them not to embroil me in a deal I didn't agree to, I let it go. If it gets sticky, I disengage in various ways until it doesn't come up any more. Accepting any inchoate social obligation can get us into these murky waters; sexual politics aren't the only danger.
You and I are alike, Tex, in that there are many traditional ritual courtesies we would personally prefer to do without. I'm not a fan of suits and ties, for example. I'm much more comfortable in biker clothes. The wearing of the tie is a ritual courtesy too -- it has no practical function aside from a demonstration that one is showing respect to the social form that has brought us together today, and by extension, to everyone involved in it. There's a hidden cost to me (I'm going to be uncomfortable all day), but it's something borne for the sake of the social goods.
It's possible to carve out a space for one's self as an outsider to these rituals, in exchange for a cost one has to pay in not being accepted as an insider. That cost may extend to losing out on job opportunities and thus financial or other gains, which can be a high cost. All the same, that's my usual preference. You and I share, I think, an unusually high need for unfettered autonomy.
It's also possible to try to undermine the ritual courtesies so that no one still feels bound by them. That mode is what bothers me, more than having a personal preference for being left out. These forms protect something, for a lot of people, and that something is the capacity to have fraught interactions protected and channeled by deeply-felt norms. Strip that away, and the interactions become much more raw and perilous.
The norms aren't endangered by people like us, who defy the norms but also willingly pay the costs. The norms are destroyed by people who insist that they should be allowed to defy the norms at no cost. When that happens, these social forms unravel and the protections are lost to everyone -- not just people who don't miss them, but also those who really depended on them to be safer in sticky situations.
In addition to the general irritation about being told that my 'kind' aren't wanted, I also have a Chestertonian sentiment about these people who are busting down walls whose purpose they don't understand. When the things come flooding in that the walls were supposed to keep out, well, who busted down the wall?
The response that you and Cassandra have been floating to that which I find persuasive is: 'Those walls weren't actually very effective compared to what we have now.' The sentiment that you prefer a world without wall that channel you into 'bargains' you don't want is one I don't need to be persuaded of, as I feel the same way. But I think there's a mode of rejecting the bargains that doesn't tear down whatever walls are best. It may not be exactly the old walls, but some sorts of norms and ritual courtesies are a good idea in these cases.
I don't mind being offered ritual courtesies, even if I'd have been happy doing without them--until we reach the point of someone trying to argue either that I'm covertly destroying the fabric of society, or that I am being ungrateful and/or inconsistent in politely declining. If the complaint is the first, all I can say is that what I seem to be destroying strikes me as less valuable than what I'm preserving. That's a sort of judgment call that certainly can start an argument, but if what I'm preserving is essential enough, I can live with that. If the complaint is the second, I lose patience quickly. A gift that I can be berated for refusing is not a gift, and it would be best not to present it in the light of a gift, but instead identify it as an attempted imposition, a baited hook.
As for things like wearing ties, I can't quite make the connection to the problem here. If wearing a tie is a courtesy freely offered to another person, that's fine, as long as the tie-wearer doesn't try to get the other person to "pay the favor back," so to speak. No one, I hope, shows up in a tie, then is aggrieved because his companion fails to engage in some other ritual courtesy he was expecting in return. If he did, he might find people saying in some exasperation, "Well, next time, don't wear the darn tie, then."
Half a century ago I placed myself outside the system that tacitly allows women to get men to foot the bill all the time. Part of the cost was that I was never accepted as an insider in that system, not to mention the fact that I had to keep money in the bank if I expected to eat out, so to speak. There's also often been a certain amount of "Fine, be that way" attitude directed my way. That's the breaks. The idea of letting guys pick up the tab and then having to listen to them complain about being taken advantage of when I didn't toe the line in various ways--not only the most obvious one--was anathema. I'd have done a great deal more than I did to avoid that reproach. Being an outsider is sometimes no picnic, but it beats being an insider in a system that, for whatever reason, one finds too galling.
The Chinese run a gift-based favor economy like what you're describing; if I accept a gift (and it's rude to refuse), then I owe you a favor. I imagine their experience of me was that I was quite ungrateful, being willing to accept gifts rather than be rude, but feeling no obligation to return the favor. I like to give gifts, but on my terms.
...destroying the fabric of society, or that I am being ungrateful and/or inconsistent in politely declining. If the complaint is the first, all I can say is that what I seem to be destroying strikes me as less valuable than what I'm preserving. That's a sort of judgment call that certainly can start an argument, but if what I'm preserving is essential enough, I can live with that...
Good point. That's roughly where I feel like we are as a society with this debate. Is it really true that I am destroying the fabric of society by living my life according to allegedly outdated notions of what men are supposed to be like? I've seen about fifty articles this week saying that I am. Do I intend to reform my life according to what they tell me is necessary for us to have a society with a fabric that would satisfy them? I do not.
My life has been pretty different from Tex's. Maybe that explains where we see things differently, or maybe women (like men) aren't a monolithic group of clones who all think and act alike. I suspect it's both :p
I don't remember ever expecting a guy I dated to pay for anything. If he offered on the first date (which was traditional, since the person who issues the invitation is generally assumed to pick up the tab), I wasn't offended and didn't feel I had been "bought" for the evening.
When I married, I didn't expect my husband to be the only one working. I worked all the way up until I gave birth to our first child. And I worked part time when he was an infant, and then I moved out of our apartment for my husband's senior year and lived with my parents (paid nominal rent) so I could work the graveyard shift to help support us.
Later, it often made no economic sense for me to work. But I had a job at home, and I managed our home and finances and kept the yard and house in shape and mowed the lawns every week. And still found odd jobs to make money for projects around the house and our boys' tuition.
So I'm always a bit mystified to see men talking about how women need a husband to "take care of them". I always thought being married meant taking care of each other - with the details left up to the people involved. During the times I wasn't working, his salary went a LOT farther because I managed our money well and put in a lot of sweat equity around the house - buying and fixing up old furniture, sewing curtains and clothes, cooking meals from scratch, etc. Other times, I brought in money when that made sense. My salary put our boys through college.
I never ran into that whole "quid pro quo", mercenary attitude towards women until I started blogging and reading conservative blogs. I can see where the more angry type of feminist wounds men, but striking a brave blow against them by implying all women are like that (or worse, saying in effect, "some women screwed this up so I'm going to take it out on all women - even those who don't share your views") seems.... gosh, I dunno...overwrought.
I run into rude or angry men from time to time, but I don't tar all men with the same broad brush. And I don't assume they're all woman-hating MRA types who - to these ears - are indistinguishable from angry, man hating feminists.
For the sake of clarity, none of my second-to-last paragraph was aimed at Grim (who hasn't said that sort of thing that I'm aware of).
Angry people with grievances have a way of spreading their misery to others. The whole #metoo thing annoys me because it has a competitive, bandwagonish aspect that encourages 'can you top this?' storytelling that readers have no way of verifying. I can't imagine the kind of person who deals with actual sexual assault by posting 140 character synopses on Twitter, of all places.
And too many of the examples aren't anything even approaching sexual assault or abuse.
The whole thing reminds me of that idiotic #freethegirlsofbokoharam campaign. As though criminals who kidnap and gang rape little girls are really going to be deterred by a Tweetstorm.
Stupidity on stilts.
I agree with Cassandra entirely that it's the MRA mentality that charges up the debate for me; I don't get that vibe from Grim or Mike, obviously. I do start to get uncomfortable now and then with the "why you ungrateful . . ." vibe. I get why ingratitude is an irritating attitude, but I also think it's incredibly important to analyze why you think someone is ungrateful. What exactly did you think they should naturally have been grateful for? It's perilously close to transactional thinking, and as much as I love the free market, I do think there are natural duties between human beings that are completely inappropriate for quid-pro-quo treatment, nor are they in any way limited to the duties of strong men. All of us have strengths we are obligated not to exploit. If you leave someone's house without having secreted silverware in your socks, you're not supposed to expect gratitude. If you leave the comfort of your home to help total strangers escape a deadly wildfire, that's different. You might be too proud to demand gratitude, but no one would be surprised if you recoiled with distaste when the rescued people were churlish enough to behave ungratefully. It's not a simple issue.
...but I also think it's incredibly important to analyze why you think someone is ungrateful. What exactly did you think they should naturally have been grateful for?
I don't think I would have cast it as an issue of gratitude at all. I would have cast it as 'Show respect, get respect.' Bikers say this sometimes (or its close variation, 'Want respect? Show respect.')
You have heard me to be saying that I feel that certain persons can go jump because they aren't grateful for all the nice things I've been doing. What I meant to say is that these people are demanding ever-greater displays of respect. It's 'kowtowing' that they want, to borrow your term: a whole range of ritual submissions and admissions of guilt, combined with accepting our shame for being their permanent oppressors.
This seems to be true for "men" in this debate, for "white people" in an allied debate, and for "the rich" or "the 1%" in a third. It's "Southerners" almost always. The people on one side of these debates want a lot from the people targeted to wear the shameful robes, but they aren't showing any kind of respect in return.
It's the opposite of gratitude, really. It's not that I feel like I've done them any special service for which they owe me a debt. It's that I'm put off by the demand for obeisance in return for the dubious honor of being allowed to carry the mantle of deep, permanent guilt.
There's a kind of quid-pro-quo to 'Want respect? Show respect.' But it's not an unreasonable one. For one thing, it puts any sort of kowtowing by either party off the table. You wouldn't kowtow to me as a means of winning my respect; and you can't demand that I kowtow to you and be showing respect. So already we're in a better place.
Likewise, the transaction is entered into by the party who wants something. I don't want anything from the people who are out looking to blame 'men' or 'white people' or 'Southerners.' They're the ones who want something, and they want it extracted from me or people they take to be like me. What do I want in return? Respect.
Not gratitude, but respect. For example, I'd like not to be painted as the source of all evils in the world, or the target of righteous vengeance against 'my class' (whichever one of those classes it is). Those are not respectful ways to speak. The one treats me as worse than I am, not that I'm claiming to be especially good; and the other invites people to view me as a proper object for punitive theft or violence, which is by no means respectful.
Want respect? Show respect. It's a surprisingly reasonable principle, given that it governs a very tricky set of emotions.
Well, I agree with you there. I rarely have much patience for people who demand respect, especially if they don't show it.
I will admit to being a bit nonplussed at your initial reaction to my post, Tex. But I think after reading the rest of the thread, I get it. When I said "let the ladies have the best of both worlds" I by no means meant that the courtesies that men like Grim and I were brought up to offer (using "ma'am" as a common address, holding doors and chairs, stopping men who behave badly from abusing others, etc) should come at a cost, like some kind of financial exchange. In point of order, I know I was raised that these courtesies are offered freely, and with no expectation of anything in return whatsoever, to include thanks.
I generally paid for everything on dates that I requested (unless the woman objected, in which case I deferred to her preference), and never once thought that such granted me any claims to her affection, physical or emotional. I was raised that if any "exchange" was involved in a date, that paying was my obligation in exchange for her agreement to go out. So by showing up, she had "earned" me paying for it. But I can't honestly say I'd ever even drew that construct together until I typed it just now. I just never once considered that my actions ever entitled me to anything at all from another human being (outside of actual business transactions, which are outside the scope of this discussion). If I help a friend move a couch, I do not feel like they owe me a blessed thing for doing so. I help because I am able and they are my friend. Period. Should I? Am I just doing this "human" thing wrong or something? I certainly don't think I am.
And I am willing to accept (and certainly have accepted) being snapped at for offering traditional courtesies. And I have never once berated anyone who did so. I'm fairly certain that I've even apologized for any offense they felt. And that's all I really meant about allowing the best of both worlds. For men raised to offer these traditional courtesies to simply accept that some women won't appreciate them and move on while continuing to offer them in good faith anyway.
And to clarify, I don't just treat women this way because "they are weaker and I am privileged" (a word I am beginning to loathe by the way), I treat people this way. I hold doors for men if I get to it first, address them as "sir", I unlock their car door for them before going to mine if I am driving (though I admit, I don't hold it for them as I do for my wife). I've never been on a date with a man, but I have bought lunch for friends with no expectation of repayment or other obligation. I don't say all this to pat myself on the back, but just simply so you know where my heart is on this. But, here is the key... I didn't mention any of this in my previous post, because how I treat other men wasn't relevant to the discussion. How I treat women was. So I limited my comments to that. I can see now how that would cause confusion, and for that I apologize.
...I am willing to accept (and certainly have accepted) being snapped at for offering traditional courtesies.
You are a far more charitable soul than I :p
It seems incredibly rude and churlish to return courtesy with spite. I can't imagine Tex doing that (unless, perhaps, she got a strong feeling there were invisible strings attached, or the courtesy was offered in a manner that caused her to suspect it wasn't genuine - here, I'm thinking of elaborately polite putdowns intended to suggest you think the recipient has airs above their station in life).
I do wonder how often this happens to men in real life? (as opposed to reading about it on the Internet, which carries the problem of skewing the availability heuristic). I ask this, because I recall how upset I was by the whole nasty PUA thing a few years back. Their writing dripped with such condescension and vitriol towards women that it really took me aback to see conservatives linking to or quoting it approvingly.
I couldn't help thinking, "Good Lord - is this REALLY what men think?"
I wouldn't have thought that, though, had it not been for bloggers I knew or read, linking to it. Absent that exposure, I would simply have assumed the linked posts were written by crazy people with serious emotional issues. That's kind of the way I view rabid, man-hating feminists. I don't know a single person like that in real life. If I did encounter one spewing that sort of nonsense about men I'd have no trouble speaking out. And avoiding that person from then on.
I often think the Internet poisons our minds by making us believe fringe viewpoints are much more common than they really are in the real world. People with an ax to grind get a disproportionate amount of attention online - partly because normal people aren't all that motivated, partly because normal people's opinions are tame by comparison, and partly because people on both sides somewhat enjoy being outraged by idiots :p
It pains me to see the nastier sort of feminist or SJW given so much attention online. I don't run into these people in real life, ever. But on Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacebook or the aptly-named Twitter, 1/10 of 1 percent of the audience can still amount to a lot of likes or retweets.
I think that distorts our assessment of how prevalent such view really are. Or at least I hope so!
Mike, I apologize. I think I took "best of both worlds" as another way of saying "have your cake and eat it," when it's clear that's not what you were trying to communicate. Any time you return a soft answer to someone who has offended you, I can see that you are offering them the best of both worlds: the world in which people extend mutual courtesies, and the world in which boors get a pass because the people they have insulted are too courteous to give tit for tat.
If I have a glimmer of what it's like for you guys to tread this minefield, it's probably when I deal with an elderly person with physical infirmities. Obviously it's my duty to help in a number of ways, but I can't very well make it clear I'm emphasizing my greater strength and acuity. I would try to arrange things so that I'm naturally standing near my elderly uncle's car door when he's about to try to get out, and to give him my arm as if it were the most natural thing in the world. I have to do it without presuming to tell him that, for his own safety, he has to let me call the shots. It's hard to get in the habit of exercising one kind of dominance without letting it bleed over into others. It's easy to assume that someone's physical weakness is the same sort of thing as a general subordination, even in areas quite unconnected with physical strength. It's also easy to take offense when someone who needs and wants consideration for his physical infirmities appears ungracious about accepting help, because his pride and independence are (or seem to be) threatened. Gratitude is not simple.
I have to do it without presuming to tell him that, for his own safety, he has to let me....
There's an example of this between two gentlemen of our generation, more or less, from the Trump-McConnell press conference a couple of days ago.
At the end of the presser, they turned to mount the stairs to go back into the White House, and McConnell had trouble with the steps, so he reached for Trump's arm for balance. Automatically, without looking; he knew the arm was available. Trump adjusted his arm to meet McConnell's hand, also automatically and without looking; no big deal. After McConnell recovered his balance, which was quite prompt, the two moved on as though nothing had happened.
Eric Hines
Okay, I am both amused and sad, and all because of this:
"Mike, I apologize."
I'll give the amused first, because I think it really was funny. So due to a related discussion, I did something I almost never do, and that was read excerpts from this discussion to my wife (bless her for her patience with me). And in the course of doing so she laughed about me apologizing to those who have taken offense at me offering "traditional courtesies" (I do like that turn of phrase). She said something like, "you apologize for everything!" And she may have a point (okay, she does have a point, mea culpa).
But then I read your response, which I had not seen previous to this and immediately said out loud, "Aww, Tex! You're breaking my heart! You don't owe me an apology!" And she LAUGHED! "You have no room to tell anyone not to apologize!" And you know what? I may actually have apologized to her. :P
But back on topic, you really don't owe me any kind of apologies. Text is hard to get inflection and emotional cues from. Like I said, after reading the whole thread, I got why you read it that way. I understood the import of how you could feel that way about my "best of both worlds" comment. You were absolutely right to be suspicious of the words as written, and I accept blame for not being clearer in expressing them. In text, the burden is on the author to avoid misinterpretation, not the reader, IMO.
But one final thing (and trust me, it's hard as hell for me to disagree with something you wrote after I admit that I was wrong for being ambiguous with my own words), but I do need to clarify something. While I understand completely how offering those traditional courtesies can be seen as condescending to someone because they're "weaker" (such as an elderly relative), regardless of if that's the intent or not, I do wish to absolutely stress I don't offer these courtesies to anyone for that reason. Or to be exact, I don't offer them for that reason exclusively (I DO hold doors for elderly people too, and assist those who cannot do things for themselves, I'm not a monster who only helps the abled :P ).
When I say I hold doors open for men, I literally mean, I hold doors open for men younger and fitter than I. I hold them open for older men too. Shorter, taller, stronger, weaker, I hold doors open. Why? Because I got to it first, and I can. If I cannot (rushing to an emergency perhaps) I will pull it open further than necessary and perhaps apologize (I did say she had a point), but I would do the same for a woman as well. I do these things because it is polite and good manners to do so. I do so without expectation of thanks or praise. I am utterly confounded by the idea that there are people (which I do not doubt that there are, make no mistake) who DO expect thanks, praise, and even physical affection in return for their courtesies. It is as alien an idea as the concept of sending a woman an unsolicited picture of one's privates as a means of seducing her (another recent discussion the wife and I have had). Who on EARTH thinks that will ever work? WHY would it? It's utterly baffling (and completely off topic, sorry).
Anyhow, I'm not saying this to chide you Tex, or to imply you're missing what I'm saying. I just don't know that I feel that offering "traditional courtesies" is a minefield. I just understand that some people (men and women both) may misunderstand my intent, and take exception to it. It's just the cost of being polite. I know I mean no offense, but they don't realistically have any way of knowing that. Because there are bad actors out there who do. I am okay with that. I have to be. Because I am going to go right on offering the courtesies anyway in the spirit that I was raised to offer them.
I do wonder how often this happens to men in real life? (as opposed to reading about it on the Internet, which carries the problem of skewing the availability heuristic).
Infrequently, in my experience. But it does happen. I can immediately recall two such examples. One was where I held a door open for a woman who shot me a dirty look and said, "I can open doors for myself, thank you very much!" To which I said, "I'm sorry, I meant no offense." And went about my day.
The other was one that I absolutely botched my response and felt terrible about. A cashier in California seemed displeased that I called her "ma'am", so I apologized and tried to explain that I called every woman "ma'am" regardless of age, which I think called further attention to the idea that I must think she's OLD, or something. I stumbled out an explanation of even calling my very young niece "ma'am", but I think by that point she was not charitably inclined to believe me.
As I typed the last, I do recall one other example which caught me absolutely flatfooted. While taking a support call from a customer I did not know, I called him "sir". He immediately became very irate and basically accused me of calling him "sir" in a mocking form of disrespect. I (of course) immediately apologized and said that I was raised in the South in a military household, and served myself so I address everyone as sir and ma'am, and certainly meant no disrespect by it. I think he was mollified, but I won't swear to it. But I absolutely recall being shocked by the idea that he would immediately assume that anyone calling him sir (especially a stranger) would only be in a mocking manner. So strange.
I'm terrible at not calling women "ma'am," even if they ask, unless we are close friends and I would naturally call them by their first name. It's just ingrained as a feature of my upbringing, and I really have to think about it to not do it automatically.
Just apologizing for perhaps misinterpreting your statement and jumping to some erroneous and unflattering conclusions. :-)
Do you have any idea how hard it was for me not to apologize to you just now? The error was mine in being less clear than I should have. So let us leave it where it lies now, so neither of us have to start apologizing for apologizing. ;)
Grim, what's worse is, while I don't chide others for calling me "sir" (and fully acknowledge that I do it myself), I have actually called someone "sir" while telling them there's no need to call ME "sir".
Now if that is not the height of the ridiculous, I'm not sure what is.
Further, my wife actively dislikes me calling her ma'am, but if caught off guard (while reading or such) if she addresses me or asks me a question, I will respond "Yes, ma'am?". And I KNOW she doesn't like it and try not to do it.
She also points out I never actually call her by her given name unless I am upset with her (usually relying on affectionate names like "honey" or "dear").
Speaking of ridiculous, here's my situation at work. Most of my co-workers are women, and I've worked with most of the same people for years now, so I've had some experience with them. Whenever approaching a door with one of them, here's how they react:
If I open the door for A, she grimaces and pauses, but then goes ahead and doesn't say anything.
Miss B is thoroughly Southern and consistently stops 4 feet from the door to allow me to go ahead and open it for her.
C and D both will let me open the door for them, but then will make a point of rushing ahead to open the next door for me.
E, who is new-ish and much younger than I am, grimace-smiles and thanks me in a manner I imagine she would use when her grandfather innocently says something horribly sexist. In an anthropological sense, she understands the courtesy my savage ways are meant to express and tries to react as she imagines someone of my benighted tribe should.
F just doesn't seem to care. If I open the door for her, she walks right through. If I don't, she doesn't seem to mind at all. I really just can't tell what she thinks about it.
When I lived in Japan, I discovered this door opening ritual was not a universal thing. When I was a noob over there, a couple of times Japanese women stopped and stared at me when I opened a door for them. They had no idea what I was doing. That's just not a thing over there, and I stopped doing it while I was there. I would happily dispense with this custom because it has become complicated and tedious, but Miss B would never forgive me, and who knows how new acquaintances would react?
Recently a Latin American woman has joined my circle of friends. She gets visibly irritated if I don't open doors for her, but she doesn't stop to let me go ahead like Miss B does. I have to race her to the doors.
On any given weekday, I might go through doors with any or all of these women. That's just life now.
I love it, and am proud to have done my part in leaving everyone in a state of painful confusion. :-) I probably act like F but am privately thinking more like E, perhaps more benignly.
"and am proud to have done my part in leaving everyone in a state of painful confusion"
LOL
Mission accomplished, eh?
Tom,
What if a woman opens the door for you?
I'm a woman and always open the door for whoever might be directly behind me, or whoever might have full hands.
I thank them and go through. It only bothers me if I think it's a score-keeping issue and not a genuine courtesy, though even then it's not a big deal. If someone, man or woman, is just being nice, that's a good thing.
I always open the door for anyone of either sex. It's not something I think about much - it just seems like the natural thing to do.
Now that I'm older, I sometimes can see in a guy's body language that he either thinks he should open the door for me or wants to. If I notice in time, I wave off and then thank him for it.
Sometimes that little grimace may not have anything to do with being annoyed, though. Sometimes I am unsure of what I'm supposed to be doing and I get this expression on my face that just means I'm trying to decide what in the heck I'm supposed to do.
I never expect anyone to do anything for me. I'm happy if someone is nice to me. I remember really noticing (after growing up in New England, then living in the South, then moving back up north for college) how grouchy everyone seemed up there. In the South, people are generally much more friendly and helpful. They make eye contact.
I suppose a lot of it is just what you're used to.
Here in Georgia, though we now have a great number of transplanted people, I almost never run into anyone who objects to having the door held. It's still a very accepted practice, brightly welcomed by almost all. Maybe twice in my life has someone objected.
In any case, I should like to say that you lot have covered yourselves in a kind of glory here. A contentious issue was discussed by all with an eye to better understanding each other, without hurting the feelings of others in the fellowship. Well done.
That is why they need "Planned Profit". And Americans fell for it, hook line and sinker. They thought the Left was the sexual liberators, just like blacks think Lincoln was the Democrat liberator, just like LBJ, so they worship the Demoncrats.
The "freedom" was just the trap for the marks, so that they would fall into slavery by choosing it. 1960s sexual liberation was Lucifer's con, and Americans fell for it. Hollywood is partially a result of that. Planned Profit makes even more profit when there are rapists protected by Leftists, because it gives them more abortions and more abortions gives them more R/D material when they dispose of the corpses. This R/D money is then money laundered to the feds and the state and the mayors, so that police unions and academies can benefit from various deals, kickbacks, and funding. And these academies then provide a fruitful recruiting ground for "feminism", and feminism provides unilateral support to Hollywood pedos and rapists. The Circle of Evil, as I call it.
The Leftist alliance is a hydra with 1000 heads. Even if you destroy one of them, it will just be regenerated. Until you destroy ALL OF THEM, it doesn't work. That is the problem America faces.
Post a Comment