Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Newsletters
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Stranger Tickets
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
EverOut
Things To Do
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
EverOut App
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
Publication Info
Check it out
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
Gender policing hurts everyone.
Though sex certainly can reduce stress and depression, and I think @1 may be on to something. I know when I was in my 20s, as a straight guy going home from a club depressed and alone, I envied my gay guy friends who rarely had that problem. Of course I could usually cure that by listening to Morrisey, who reminded me that no matter how I felt, there was a gay guy who apparently had it worse than I did.
Except for homophobes, I don't think people who are 100% straight really stress about being mistaken for gay too much. It doesn't even occur to a 100% straight dude that anyone would think any different. Plus, if Lindsey Graham and the Pope can live as presumptively straight, then anyone can.
My explanation? Some of the "straights" sampled in the study are really closet-cases which skews the average stress levels of the straight group off. I think what is really stressful is being in the closet.
If that explanation isn't right, then I think @1 might be right. Queer people have multiple partners more often and get laid more, both of which conceivably relieve stress. I know I feel more relaxed about my life since my wife and I opened up our relationship 5 years ago.
you get letters from a small segment of the straight male populace.
Would be interesting to look at cortisol levels in cultures where men have more freedom within the stereotypical hetero male identity (e.g., Europe). God forbid an American straight guy wear colored jeans. Or hug a friend in public without a firm pat on the back.
THIS. THIS. FUCKING THIS.
Maybe you just caught me - Mr. Typical Straight Guy married to a low-sex drive housewife - in the middle of a sexless rut. But this lack of sex seriously causes stress. If you drank my cortisol right now you could fight Mike Tyson.
I have never heard of Gay bed death.
In the 90s, the term "homme rose" (literally: pink men) was coined to describe the (supposedly) typical Quebec male: sensitive, caring, who did his share of the housework and who took care of the kids, etc. Unfortunately, women had begun complaining, that seemingly-perfect man wasn't much of a stud in the bedroom. After decades of clamouring for less stereotypical gender roles, the women of Quebec apparently (and ironically) found themselves yearning for more macho types.
Now, If I were straight, I might find it stressful to have to go from one end of the spectrum to the other every day.
While certainly not every straight guy worried about being perceived as gay, I have known a lot of straight guys who do.
But...
That doesn't account for all of it.
I think @1 may be onto something, but I don't think it is just the amount of sex. Even those of us who are monogamous and not going out and having purely recreational sex with multiple partners seem a bit more satisfied with our sex lives than it seems many straight guys are.
I think it is more about how we have sex, rather than how many people we have sex with or how often we have sex.
For one thing, while there is variation in every population, men and women tend to approach sex differently, and two guys are generally going to be more on the same page about it. Not always, but I think far more often.
But I think the biggie is something that Dan has mentioned before. It's that because gay people don't have automatic sex roles we do, or can, fall into we typically get into the habit of starting off sexual encounters with new people with those magic words, "What are you into?"
We negotiate sex. It's kind of inherent to the process when you are gay. Straight people, while they can negotiate, they have some pretty strong cultural sex roles they can fall into without a need to negotiate, and so a lot of straight guys probably do fall into them without feeling they can express their specific needs or wants.
Gay guys pretty much have to at some point. And I think that even when we settle down, and even if we choose to be monogamous, it just become habit. After years with the same person you certainly don't really have to ask "what are you into?", but there is always room for negotiating. This time person A may want to be the top. Next time person B may want to be the top. The time after that one may decide they just want to hold close and jerk off. Another time they may want to switch off, or opt for sticking with oral, or whatever.
It just seems to me that gay people simply have more opportunity to do this kind of negotiating because it is sort of built into the system for us, and becomes habit.
And on top of it, as someone else mentioned, we are less likely to have kids. I don't have anything against kids, but not having them, and having lots of siblings, relatives, and friends with kids it's easy to see that they are like constant stress creation machines.
I think it all works together.
We gay people have our own stressors. Legal issues due to not being able to marry. Social pressure in some parts of the country. More threats of violence and discrimination.
But I think that while these kinds of things actually have potentially greater risks to us in terms of how they effect our lives, the stress from them doesn't effect us as the kinds of stress that can be produced by more intimate interactions and relationships.
Except Tim Gunn, he is awesome!
Interestingly, Ricardo @23, what you describe - men trying to fit women's expectations - is done by men precisely because they are trying to impress women which we do because IT IS HARD TO GET LAID IF YOU ARE STRAIGHT.
I hate to typecast men as simple, but really - show me a man who has busted a good load and I will show you a stress free man.
Or, to use a cliche, "the grass is always greener".
Obviously, straight guys will try to fit women's expectations because that's the key to getting laid. But what I'm describing goes deeper than that: it's the way Quebec men are brought up. And if you have been socialized one way, i.e. as a "pink man" - because anything else is frowned upon in your society - and you suddenly have to transform yourself into a man's man at your partner's whim, I'm quite convinced that this dichotomy is also a great source of stress for the heterosexual male.
And how did that turn out?
[But straight guys know they're constantly being scrutinized for evidence of gayness or not-real-man-ness—by themselves, by each other, by their girlfriends and wives—and that scrutiny can make a guy paranoid and insecure.]
Operative words - by each other. He who casts no stones himself shall be the first I declare as deserving no stones cast at him.
This post reads quite a bit like feminist posts defending Bridezillas on the grounds that women are conditioned in that direction from the cradle and before. This is true enough, I suppose, and I would sign on to help solve such a problem, but only once the First Do No Harm mechanism is securely in place. Otherwise, we end up inviting our homophobic uncles in the state legislature to our weddings.
Hallelujah.
At least for me, the stress is about not getting laid. Getting laid reduces your stress, but NOT getting laid turns the stress up quite a few notches. It's not about women, per se, either. Women are fine when sex isn't in the picture. But women + sex = oy vey. As a bonus, I'll take much more stressful jobs if I think that'll increase my chances of getting laid (read: the stressful job pays better.)
If I were gay, I wouldn't have to worry about whether I was going to get laid or not, and that would make life a bunch less stressful.
http://www.advocate.com/comedy/2012/06/2…
I haven't been able to find an abstract. Does anyone have a link?
abstract: http://tinyurl.com/aeh4a9b
pdf: http://tinyurl.com/b6fa69z
Figure 1B shows gay & bi men and straight women have fewer depression symptoms than gay & bi women and straight men. The authors speculate this might be due to more exercise and better diet, since they have a lower body mass index and lower triglycerides.
The groups didn't differ much on having children.
The authors also note an Arizona study in 2005 that showed being out at work leading to more stress (reference 88).
I think my concerns were valid after reading through the abstract and selection criteria. They only selected people from the greater Montreal area, one of the most gay friendly places in the world. They advertised among university groups, which is a classical psychological study error (77% of gay men were students in this study). But that is even worse in this case because universities are one of the most gay friendly and supportive organizations in society. And they excluded anyone with a severe mental illness. This would apply to heterosexuals as well as gays, lesbians, and bis, but it is also a pretty big issue with the study. The suicide rate of young gay men is five times that of young straight men. Biasing out anyone with a severe mental illness is going to have a disproportionate impact on a measure of mental well-being of gays (I'm not sure what the stats are for lesbians). Finally, add in the small sample size, and I think it is obvious that the only real conclusion that can be found from this study is that if you come out of the closet, your mental health will generally improve. I don't think it supports the conclusion that straights are more depressed than gays and bi guys.
If they did the same study among blue collar workers in Montana which included people with severe mental illness, I'm sure they would get a different result. This study stands in contrast with our understanding of the suicide crisis that exists within the gay community. I'm convinced that the bigotry of society is still killing gays of all ages, especially kids. This study does nothing to dispel that.
It's not gay anxiety.
It is women, but only indirectly.
Straight men spend their lives in dominance hierarchies,
trying to claw their way far enough up the ladder to get laid.
These hierarchies are pyramid-shaped, so most men are towards the bottom,
and being on the bottom is stressful. This comes straight out of the chip studies:
stress hormones correlate directly with social status.
Gay men don't compete for women, so they can mostly opt out of this.
JOKE ALERT! ;)
I am a perfectly normally intelligent, hard-working, middle class straight man, but if you asked me what the number 1 most difficult, painful, depressing, and infuriating problem in my life is, it is how the heck do I be the kind of man that women like. Be macho? Maybe, but they might be able to tell you're fake. Just be yourself and be confident? Maybe, but what if you're like me and you like reading romance novels and watching 'Girls'? Women assume you're gay and lose any attraction to you instantly. You have to tread a very fine line, especially on first dates.
I'm not saying it's impossible to attract women--it's definitely doable--mostly through economies of scale via online dating--but it's really, really difficult and takes a ton of thought, work, preparation, time, and energy.
Gay men really have it easier. They are all men, and they all know what they like, and generally speaking, they can be themselves
Looking around at the white collar world I live in, most of the straight men are sole providers for their families. Combine the stress of the job with the financial strain of providing for several mouths. And, most complain of a lack of sex. Some of the rest are having affairs which adds another layer of stress.
I refuse to believe Grindr exists. It can't be that easy for gay men to find partners, is it?
Feminist theory has always said patriarchy hurts the very men it privileges. This is why that backlash bs saying feminism=hating men is ignorant sometimes and other times calculated. Masculinity is defined mosly by what is not: feminine, vulnerable, sensitive, submissive (sexually, & otherwise) etc--basically, anything to do with women or girls, of which in patriarchy=weak.
Out gay and bi men subvert patriarchal norms and are therefore free to define themselves (or not, they don't necessarily need to) only by who and what they are, whether or not that involves traits and behaviors patriarchal norms dictate as "feminine". Gender play does not threaten these men's sense of identity.
Of course straight men, the ones invested heavily in traditional masculinity consciously or because they don't know they can do otherwise, are, what's the buzzword? 'Anxious,' I think. They can get off the ride, some don't want to, others don't think to get off. The answer, as progressive glbt and feminist minded people demonstrate, is more education about institutional societal systems and hierarchies and tolerance of differences. The non-anxious (straight) men are hip to these a-changin' times.
All of this is why misogyny I witness from gay men really pisses me off. Glbt issues are inexplicably linked to women's issues, all of which are human issues v the patriarchy (well, kyriarchy, actually, as race, class and even geographic location all tie in, but that's a bit broader than I'll go here).
Anyway, the answer to "what's going on with men" is never "women."
It can be uncomfortable to recognize one's privilege, but understanding that the privileges one is institutionally bestowed based on appearance, race, socio-economic status, gender, etc, are bestowed unasked-for can give a bit of perspective. Basically, unless you are actively participating in discrimination, it's not about you: it's about the system.
Do feminists consider competing with other straight men for an under-supply of willing sexual partners to be a privilege of patriarchy?
Do they recognize that masculinity is largely a strategy to attract women?
What do feminists make of the fact that women, by and large, reinforce this strategy when selecting sexual partners?
And finally, is feminism a suitable framework for understanding male psychology?
Whatever your answer to these questions, I guarantee you, if straight guys got laid with the ease that gay men do, you'd see a dramatic drop in the population of douchebags.
All of that is involved in kyriarchy. Patriarchy is the root and trunk of the kyriarchy tree. The other social systems that privilege some people over other people are the branches of that tree, or the sub-hierarchies of the main patriarchal hierarchy, mainly: race, class, location. That's why I think you may want to do further research, at least based on this:
@55 "Because the patriarchy ensures that the benefit of the patriarchy doesn't go to men per se, but the tiny group of men at the top. They're quite content to watch women eat the men of their own or lower classes ... it keeps them away from where the real problems lie."
It seems that you may be experiencing less privilege based on econmic status.
The term "privilege(s)" sounds great, like it means you are automatically rich. In some ways it does, but that depends on the definition of "rich"--is it strictly re:money or does it mean you have a domicile secure from the elements with electricity, some form of convenient plumbing, easily accessible and abundant food, access to reliable care when sick, injured, pregnant etc. "Privilege(s)" though can be subtle, re: through social interactions with others.
Essentially, it goes as follows:
1. Man or woman? (Or other?)
2. Race?
3. How much money do you make/have/is your occupation respected and valued?
3a. What kind of people (aka where do they fit in the kyriarchy tree?) did you have the luck or misfortune to be born to?
4. Where do you live?
5. Are you differently-abled?
6. Do you fit cultural ideals of beauty?
7. Do you subvert any of the above?
And you can keep getting more specific but it all begins with: men privileged over women. Then race, then money and on.
You also say:
@55: "If you're a working or middle class male then feminism often seems to be more about getting an advantage over you, rather than over the men who really benefit."
I can understand this sense of, well, develocitization. A law professor of an ex of mine told a student in his class who asked a similar question about family law and how it seemed to give women more rights than men: "men are here," he said, holding a hand level with his chin, "and women have been here for all of history," now holding his other hand down by his hip, "and when we change these laws, what we're doing is this," he brings the hand by his hip up to his chin, both hands now level. "It can feel like we're privileging women over men, but we're actually just leveling the playing field. Men aren't being brought down, women are being brought up, to be equal, not better than." This same principle applies to affirmative action re:race, etc.
Not to discount your experience, everyone's is valid. Contextualize, I guess. Don't miss the forest for the trees.
The personal is political, of course, but the context matters is what I'm saying. See 60.
So, when folks who understand this start hearing about "privilege" they recognize it for the code language that it so often is: it means that the person using the "privilege" argument wants you to give up your interests (even where you aren't privileged but can be deemed to be privileged) but the person making the argument won't even admit that they possess any privilege, let alone give up some of their own.
@50: "It's rather nice to see anything about straight guys that doesn't expressly or impliedly see us as a problem (indeed, often the problem) to be solved."
Straight guys themselves are not the problem, it's the system that privileges them over others. They can be a problem if they actively support that system, by which I mean their exercising of their privilege causes problems for other people's rights, ie fighting gay marriage or reproductive rights or employment/pay/flexibility or closer to home, how they treat women.
So feminism isn't fighting YOU, it's fighting the system. Feminist criticism is about making people aware of how these systems play out in everyday, personal ways and in actions and thoughts you might not have been conscious of, but its not about personal attacks on you, specific dude, oh you are the worst feminism hates you castrate and kill castrate and kill!
Y'know?
The space occupied by men in our society is somewhat more complicated than that. For every statistic showing that men earn more money, there are others that paint a much less rosy picture.
Men are 9 times as likely to be incarcerated as women, they are less likely to finish high school and college, their live-spans are shorter, they are more likely to be the victim of violent crime, suicide rates are much higher, and today we learn that they walk around with more cortisol coursing through their veins. (I should also point out, in case it's not obvious to you, that men are no more likely to be born into wealth than women.)
Things might have been different 60 years ago, but these days, being born male is a mixed bag at best.
And "a better society" is always a good aim, in my book.
Then, again, I'm also Norwegian. *Bee boo bop* I come *bop* in peace *bee boo*
Phew, sometimes gets a little wordy trying to make a point clearly while also trying not to conflate anything, offend someone, or seem to be condescending.
All a part of that A Better Society shit.
Privilege is messy.
You have taken things I've said badly. Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I'm not competing with you or trying to win at SLOG. Jut trying to understand and make myself understood.
Not every discussion is a satisfying one, such is life, huh?
I think that is a fair question and I would support action to change that.
Of course, that leaves aside the issue of what we do when we are on the receiving end of privilege. How far must we go in trying to right things? Are we individually obliged to forsake our own advantages trying to make the society better?
These are interesting questions and lead to questions of ethics.
I think to be aware of one's privilege is a start. I don't think one needs to go out of one's way to disadvantage oneself--that would depend on one's sense of charity and one's ability to give. I think that treating others with equality and not purposely trying to disadvantage others or impede on others' rights as human beings--that old stand by 'treat others as you would be treated' is a good standard. I think it's not so difficult or too much to ask of each other.
Then again, I'm a socialist northern european.
I do not agree with this.
This is what I meant up thread when I was saying feminist criticism and pointing out privilege is not personal. It's also why I said privilege is messy. Recognizing privilege feels bad at first because it can feel like you, personally, are being held responsible for something you, personally, Mr Seeker6079, did not make happen. This is why it's so hard for the public debate in this country to discuss race--as a white person I feel horrible about slavery, but I was not personally responsible for slavery, nor have I ever nor would I ever 'own' another person. It's not fun and you're right, it makes you feel bad. That's why it's not about YOU but the system that supports race discrimination. Once that focus has switched from you to the system, it doesn't feel bad anymore.
I got my BA in South Africa. Hoo boy, did I ever confront my own privilege in my cultural criticism class as a foreign white girl talking about race and who can be called an 'African' in a class of 200 students, the majority of whom were black and from various African countries. But what was great was that, even as my face burned and I clumsily tried to articulate my point (something about how we say 'African American' in the states), my peers didn't attack me, but countered with their own thoughts. I learned SO MUCH that day. I basically smacked into a wall of glass I thought was open air.
and when around females easily become heterosexual inclined. What gay males fell to say is
as former heterosexual males we didn't reject the female,but they rejected us. Gay males
are always open to pleasure the female,because that's our nature.
Women love homosexuality,when a male turn to homosexuality,he often find success with
the woman. Did you know that gay male couples often invite females into the bedroom...
and they come,often.
Gay males are more heterosexual than the woman gender,that gay male that just like males
does'nt exist...its a myth. If a women want to have sex with us,we will yield,and the more attractive they are,the less we can resist.
Do you know the woman for centuries have been rejecting males,and at the same time would go behind his back and fornicate with her female friendaka"girlfriend". The woman
have been cheating on men with their female friends before the 1700's.
Men walking around everyday with those blindfolders on thinking its cute to not notice stuff.
The woman everyday is moving the government to pass laws & regulations to block males away.
Any woman? Or a specific kind who also likes romance (novels or what have you) and watching 'Girls'?
I have felt similarly in regard to my performance of femininity and dating.
It seems the best idea I've found is to decide to what extent you want to perform masculinity or femininity and think about the kind of person you want to attract and then yourself be a person that kind of person would want to date. Easier said than done, right? .
But I can't help but back up to fem's orignal post @53. She, Dan Savage (and other feminists) cite the patriarchy and it's supposed enforcement of rigid male constructs as the source of male stress. Yet, every straight guy who has written in has disagreed and cites to more simple explanation that the lack of available sex partners is the cause of stress. (Ever see two rams butt heads for the right to mate with the females?? Something like that).
SeanDr, I would answer your questions in @53 but we would be accused of Mansplaining....
Anyway, I recommend "Self-Made Man" by Norah Vincent for a totally different perspective the pressures men face. It's sort of a "Black Like Me" for gender relations.
And not only do you have poor reasoning and ridiculous ideas but your grammar is shit.
There is no seperately existing entity called "the system". There are just a whole bunch of men and women who interact. You are criticizing that interaction, particularly and specifically the men who interact; calling it "the system" is just an academic habit to avoid saying plainly what you mean. The problem with patriarchy is male behavior. Period.
That is why men get their backs up. When you say "patriarchy is a problem", if you break it down to day-to-day life, you're basically saying, "Men generally behave badly--but no offense meant."
I've always found it hilarious listening to some straight girls complain, for example, that they want a MMF and why can't men be comfortable with other men, blah blah, but if there's even a hint of lavender [yes, I am using that dated pejoratively ironically] about a man they book and fast because they, in their turn, are scared. Part of it is, imho, because so many straight women buy into too-traditional notions of what a Man is, and part of it is that our cultural frames still accept (whether we realize it or not) that part of the deal in straight relationships is that the woman controls the sex. A woman with bi male knows that if she sets too thin a ration her man can easily get gay sex somewhere else; a straight woman knows how hard it is for many (most?) men to get laid, and so the control dynamics are very different, very much more in the woman's favour, and therefore very unwelcome. Personally I think that most of this operates at a culturally-programmed subconscious level, but it IS there.
This struck me in your comment:
"Supposed[ly] enforcement of rigid male constructs [is] the source of male stress. Yet, every straight guy who has written in has disagreed and cites to more simple explanation that the lack of available sex partners is the cause of stress."
What we are saying is that 'rigid male constructs' don't give men any margin for error, and failing to meet these constructs of 'what makes a man a real man' can lead to internal struggle and depression.
It relates to how a man performs his masculinity--he's been told the privileged story of the tall handsome wealthy guy with a flashy car and, more recently, looking effortlessly groomed with washboard abs gets all the pussy. Well, turns out different pussies like different kinds of dicks or even other pussies and while you can pay for sex, you really can't pay for a woman who meets all your 'datable' criteria, loves you deeply, and likes the same kind and frequency of sex you like. You have to find her, if you can. And there's the rub--no one is entitled to this kind of relationship. Nor is anyone entitled to sex.
And that's where we start to get into the issue of one person's privilege impeding on others' rights when another person is added to the mix. Not that that happens automatically, but it can.
So, I guess that's an issue with male sexuality that is worth exploring: the straight man's perceived lack of available and willing sexual partners, causes, solutions and context.
Someone do that study, please.
I think it's disingenuous to say "the problem with patriarchy is men's behavior. Period." That isn't the ONLY problem--not all men consciously discriminate against women, just as not all white people CONSCIOUSLY discriminate against people of other races.
It is a system of IDEAS. Both ideas and behavior can be changed. If you think I've been sweeter than I should be or just less angry than I should be, you haven't read very many of my SLOG comments. Trust, I value feminist rage. I just don't always think throwing fire is best response. And that's the main idea, to change thoughts and behavior through using one if the oldest tools in the feminist toolbox: consciousness raising.
Call someone a racist and see how well they take the rest of that conversation--one more lost opportunity for a constructive discussion.
If you call attention to racist language or racist behavior, that's calling out one instance to someone's attention, not attacking their character. They can correct that and still feel respected. Now they might think about moments of racism they find themselves unconsciously participating in, or evenly consciously, and maybe they'll stop. Better yet, they might recognize it in others and pay it the change forward. That's how you slowly and surely permeate progressive ideas of equality through the general public. It takes fuckin forever! It helps if those ideas permeate mainstream media and entertainment.
Attack a person's character and you'll keep fighting each other.
When it's the system of ideas you're fighting, you can potentially win that person over and bam! Now you're both fighting the system, not each other.
Phew. Time for another joint.
Regarding the inherent lack of available sex partners for straight men, I assume that problem is a simple supply/demand imblalance, i.e. men need sex more than women. (not that men want or enjoy sex more, just get need it more, on the aggregate). For some reason that proposition offends feminists, not sure why.
Happy Friday!
It has always been "it's a shared problem ... but all we're going to do is talk about how you have to change". This is where many men who'd otherwise be feminists are wary of "consciousness raising" because it's the same as dealing with a marital counsellor: if all he wants to talk about is how one spouse is wrong, then that spouse is going to -- and should -- walk away from a rigged game.
"Disingenuous--Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I'm saying that when someone criticizes "the patriarchy", all the while protesting that this isn't personally directed at men, they are being disingenuous. I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of feminism, I'm just objecting to your not owning what you say. I find it a common technique in social criticism, and feminist critiques especially, where we get to avoid saying that anyone *specifically* is at fault, and anyone *specifically* needs to change. It's the system. It's society. Not actual people. When really what you're saying, and what feminism has been saying all along, is that men need to change how they behave toward women. Sure, women may need to be part of that process, but only insofar as it helps to change men's behavior. If that weren't the basic, end-result problem, you wouldn't be involved in this discussion.
So yes, feminist critique is personal, and it is directed at men, because its whole purpose is to change ("privileged") male behavior--not some vaguely apprehended "system". Just say that clearly, and honest discussion can ensue. (This all began as a response to your comment @57, btw.)