Women are their own best friends and worst enemies.

yeah. what she said. even though i didn't really listen b/c i fell asleep three seconds in....

'cause highlighting one's sexuality is anti-feminist.

Liar Liar, that is so right. The revolution will be televised!
Gil-Scott Heron = so fucking yesterday.

Actually I don't give a shit about the above statements I just wrote.

everything she said sounds legit and correct. women aren't equal yet. not here in the USA, and especially not in some other countries (just saw a nat'l geographic pic of a 14 yo girl bathing her newborn while her 2 yo kid looked on...article on child brides; fucking yikes...)
but the bit about picking on beyonce...whatever. i guess it is a high-profile chance to make the point. but making a big deal of calling her a "liar". meh.

thank you for posting this, jen graves!! this analysis is so, so needed.

Perhaps these stats will cheer you up, Jen:

- Men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than women
- Men are 1/3rd more likely to be victims of violent crime
- Men account for about 77% of homicide victims
- 93% of all prisoners are men
- The average lifespan of women is 5 years longer than men
- Men are 2.3 times more likely to end up in drug treatment
- The majority of homeless people are male. The overwhelming majority of those living on the street are male
- 58% of college degrees are earned by women
- Women are awarded (joint or sole) child custody in 90% of divorces, men in 68%
- Men are about 30% more likely then women to drop out of high school

And I was merely irritated at yet another woman calling women "girls." Thanks for posting this—it's really great.

P.S. As for "objectification", which traits best predict whether women will find a man attractive? His income and his height.

If you punched your wife in the teeth (@1:39) in Tennessee, that would (or at least could) be Aggravated Assault (assault where serious bodily injury occurs). And that's a Class C felony bringing 3 to 15 years in prison.
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/tenness…

So, yes, maybe they should have also made domestic violence a felony, but maybe they could focus instead on applying to domestic violence situations the laws that already exist to put people in prison for punching other people in the mouth.

This is great.

Onion, @5, I don't think it's about picking on beyonce as much as using a cultural artifact to examine the social issues of our day.

@7

WHAT ABOUT THE MENS

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/…

@11 - okay, wait, correcting myself. She was talking about South Carolina, and I googled Tennessee by mistake.

Turns out, South Carolina is a shit hole. Look at what they do with the kind of assault where you have punched someone (your wife, anyone) in the mouth:

Third Degree Assault and Battery
This is what’s commonly referred to as a simple assault or common law assault. It is the applicable charge when you injure someone else. It’s a misdemeanor offense which carries up to 30 days in jail.
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/south-c…

To get it up to a felony, you have to commit an assault and battery where injury results, and

it includes nonconsensual touching of genitals in a lewd manner, or
it occurred during the commission of a theft, robbery, kidnapping, or burglary.
An assault (without battery, or physical contact) which was likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

So yeah, turns out in S. Carolina it would be hard to ever get a husband for a felony, unless he beat her almost to death. Fuckers.

@9, what kinds of measurable "traits" would you prefer that women were attracted to? What were the options in those studies? Did it really study whether women were more attracted to income than to personality? How would you design that study? Or it is possible that confidence in men correlates with height and income, and that women are attracted to self-confidence?

@7 Concern troll!

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#butb…

@13: I see. So when ever someone on the internet claims it's a man's world, it's "disruptive" and "inappropriate" to show stats indicating that it ain't that simple?

I suggest you come on out of your Women's Studies bubble and join the rest of us here in the real world.

If it makes you feel better, seandr, women are more likely to attempt suicide than men, they're just more likely to fail at it. Men tend to use more violent methods (guns, nooses) while women use less violent methods (pills, slitting wrists). Much easier to screw up suicide by pill than suicide by gun,

@17 Yeah ladies, join us in the "real world" where we dominate all conversations with men's experiences.

@15: I'm not suggesting that women need to change what they like, just that objectification works both ways, a point that is often overlooked by certain strains of feminism. (Apparently, as suggested by @13 and @16, this isn't even a legitimate subject of conversation, and I'm not a legitimate participant. Talk about double standards.)

As for research, there have been a bazillion studies on what women/men find attractive in the opposite sex. Some use self-report, some use sociological data, some use implicit manipulations (e.g., one study showed that women were more likely to call a male suitor back if he wrote his phone number on a bank slip showing he had a large vs. small balance). Of course, studies show that women are attracted to personality traits as well, in particular generosity, kindness, and sense of humor.

@17, Um, yeah it's a man's world. Certainly things aren't as simple as women have it worse on every front, but just because you can point out a few places where men get the short end of the stick doesn't mean women have anything approaching an equal share in society. Women are roughly half the population, do well over half of the world's work, but only control a small fraction of positions of economic, political and social power. It is very clearly a man's world.

@18: What would make me feel better is if feminism were to evolve into humanism.

@21, if your evidence is that all things being equal, women prefer men with large bank accounts to men with small bank accounts, that's not much evidence that women objectify men.

@23 Feminism is a carved out space and not big tent humanism because women are a minority voice and are silenced by the power and privilege of men. When women are talking about how they are affected by male domination and a man comes in and says WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ, they are silencing women's experiences.

Feminism gives women a safe place to talk about FEMALE ONLY EXPERIENCES. Your participation in this thread is derailing and concern trolling. You have no interest in talking about the points in the video and only want to fixate on the male narrative on the false grounds that they are equitable. Male privilege silences and marginalizes.

@24, A common estimate is that women perform roughly two-thirds of the worlds work, but because most of that work is informal, it is hard to get a fix on. UNICEF mentions this here under the "Assets" sub-heading. It's not definitive proof that women do most of the world's work, but I trust the UN well enough.

@19 for the insightful male-approved win.

Funny, I heard that Beyonce song just last night for the first time. And my immediate reaction was that, yeah, I guess that's nice as some sort of "girl power anthem" or whatever; to bad it's not remotely true.

@25: The evidence shows that women are attracted to height and wealth. And muscular (but not too muscular), broad-shouldered, narrow-wasted bodies. If that's not objectification, then neither is the fact that men are attracted to large breasts.

But hey, I'd be happy to ditch the term "objectification" altogether, as it's typically used to cast male sexuality in a negative light.

@Ken, Here's another relevant link: http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/…

@26: My concern is for the civil rights of all people.

To the extent that feminism or any other ideology places a higher value on the liberties and lives of one group of people over another, as a human being, I feel morally compelled to challenge it. If being a humanist makes me a troll, than I guess I'm a humanist troll.

P.S. SLOG isn't a support group.

@31 Men being attracted to large breasts is not sexual objectification. Treating and using people as objects and teaching them to value and view their physical selves from observations of others first ("sexy but not sexual" as Hugo Schwyzer puts it) is sexual objectification. Don't use words you don't understand the definitions to.

@26: Thank you.

@26 Feminism does not place a higher value on women than men. Feminism is not about female domination over men. Feminism is about focusing on the particular issues of women in the context of overall gender equality. The idea that we can talk about all our issues openly and w/o groups means you have unrecognized male privilege. We are not equals and do not have equal voices. If you truly have concern for the civil rights of all people, you should learn your place in the kyriarchy.

Er. @36 was in response to @33

seandr: Wow. THE WORLD IS ALREADY UNEQUAL. There IS a higher value placed on the liberties and lives of one group over another.

Further: If you think that men's suffering will "cheer me up," you don't know a thing about me. Play your zero-sum game in your own sandbox, and stay out of mine.

@31, @34 - actually, female choices in males alters depending on their biological cycle.

There is a wide disparity between what people tell you they do and what they actually do, of course, but that's what peer-reviewed research shows us.

@33, You are completely misunderstanding feminism if you think it places a higher value on the lives and liberties of one group of people over another. The goal of feminism is not to make it a woman's world instead of a man's world, but to smash the patriarchy. Most feminists would like to see the other intersections of power get smashed, too, and are allies in those fights, but feminism focuses on the patriarchy, there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with that. If you are serious about ending the oppression of women (and a humanist would be, no?), then sit down, shut-up, and listen to what the women need from us men and do it. Women do not need men derailing conversations about women's issues with 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?' There is a time and a place for 'what about the men', even in feminist discourse, but this ain't it.

@38: "Cheer you up" == irony.

After some years of thought on the matter, I am of the mind that women compose community--always have and always will. Women, quite effectively, form communal responses to perceived threats; women form collectives. Women form themselves into communities for their own united protection, as well as for greater sexual bargaining power with men.

Men lack this series of characteristics, and will never communally lobby for their own rights and protection.

What I believe Seandr is pointing out is that while feminist ideology may have unsteady foundations as regards the depth and scope of their woes, there is quantitative, factual information illustrating that men seem to suffer many if not most social woes.

Do not the ends of feminism seem irrelevant when they address not the root but merely the periphery of social ills?

But, again, there are many perfectly viable logical fallacies to be used to undermine everything so far I've said here.

@ Jen Graves. Her point is well enough made, but honestly I thought Single Ladies ("Put a Ring On It") was waaaaay more problematic than this song. I mean talk about implicitly objectifying female agency, the whole message of that song was: if you wanted to control it (me), you should have claimed it (me) as your own.

@42 "Do not the ends of feminism seem irrelevant when they address not the root but merely the periphery of social ills?"

And what is that root? I suggest you read up on radical feminism.

@39 I thought women were a monolithic group on the prowl for men (as we're all straight) with broad shoulders, high credit scores, and big bank accounts to take care of us and our babies? Could it possibly be that we are all individuals who want different types of partners based on how we grew up, our age, our particular spot in life, and the million other things that make us up? and that people fall in love and have sex and desire all different shapes and sizes and types of people?

... naw.

@20- Does anyone seriously think men aren't into women who have money?

Rich people are better dressed, have better skin, drive nicer cars, eat better food and can buy me expensive bicycle gear. Of course everyone's into rich people of their preferred gender.

@ 44 'single ladies' is the most popular song to be requested at wedding receptions in the last half century.

But messages like these can also make women feel empowered and act differently then they otherwise would, right?

I don't know, I struggle against gossip, cattiness, bitchiness and petty behavior everyday in my field and it's a female driven field of work that is largely dependent on personal relationships over actual goals, ideas and achievements, it sucks. You know who is usually the most sane and rational person in a meeting? The dude. Who sleeps through the meetings. One time I punched a guy in the face for repeatedly grabbing my ass and then when he started yelling about it someone else punched him too. It was pretty cool, that was empowering. Feminism is weird. Why isn't anyone attacking Olivia Munn for being Olivia Munn?

@50 Except matriarchies have and do exist. Don't fall into the evo psych trap.

@50, Biology may very well have played a role in society having formed as a patriarchy. Fortunately we are perfectly capable of telling biology to go fuck itself. Biologically humans are omnivores, but there are plenty of people who subsist on herbivorous or nearly herbivorous diets. Biology is not destiny, and if our biology dictates that we hurt other people, we have an obligation to go against our biology.

Oh, and kersy @51 is right, there is nothing inevitable about patriarchy. Different societies have been organized in different ways at different times.

I've tried to challenge a few of assumptions here in an intelligent, respectful, and evidence-based manner:
1) Women do not have a monopoly on suffering. Not even close.
2) Feminists routinely overstate the privileges of being male and understate the privileges of being female.
3) A paradigm that focuses exclusively on one group's interests to the exclusion of everyone else is an inherently prejudiced paradigm.

I understand that people are going to disagree. But dismissing me as a troll, telling to get out the sandbox, and informing that I have no place in this discussion?

Lame.

*waits for a rabbit to show up wielding a feminist smackdown of internet proportions*

@54 -
1) uncontroversial
2) let me guess, one of the privileges of being female is that we can have sex whenever we want? The fact men want that privilege does not make it something women are privileged to have. The sex that we can have whenever we want it -- that sex is mostly crappy sex (with no way to identify the good sex ahead of time). It's as if men had the privilege of eating peaches whenever they want, with the caveat that a random 80% of the peaches taste like shit.
3) do you propose a way to improve things for real people without getting into specifics? Should we not educate children, because that's a special interest? Should we not provide convenient birth control to fertile people, because that's a special interest?

@57 Ah yes, the men desire - women are desired myth. My favorite.

@54, 1) EricaP hits the nail on the head.
2) At what point is the power disparity between genders so great that feminism is justified in your eyes? Otherwise, EricaP hits the nail on the head.
3) As EricaP points out, this argument is inane. Should feminists really be fighting every battle against every form of oppression? Should the NAACP be fighting for marriage equality? Should the HRC be fighting for collective bargaining rights? Should unions be fighting for women's rights? To an extent each of these groups is fighting the others' battles, each intersection of oppression interlocks with the other, but it is perfectly ethical and right that each group focuses on the intersection that affects them as they are most familiar with how they are oppressed.

@57, Women sexually attracted to men don't love cock? I guess I have news for my girlfriend.

@59 Notice he said "A paradigm that focuses exclusively on one group's interests to the exclusion of everyone else." Women don't care about menz problems because we don't care to hear seandr's oppression olympics.

Also: "Women do not have a monopoly on suffering. Not even close."

HOLY SHIT NO WAI

@61, Plenty of women are every bit as horny as men are made out to be. More would probably act it if our society didn't tell women that their sexuality belongs to men and female sexual agency is dirty.

@64, Hm, it sounded an awful lot like you were suggesting women endure sex for whatever benefits it can yield them from men, while men just want sex. If you're saying that female sexuality differs from male sexuality in some ways, well that's kind of a non sequitur.

I'm pretty sure that, yes, they are all sucking cock on the d/l. On a more serious note, it makes women easier to control. I don't think that's the conscious reason, but it gives us as men a lot of privilege.

@61 Do I honestly believe what? That women just sit passively by, waiting for a man to take care of them and gate keeping sex (as they have no agency or sexual desire) while men (who are undesirable, and can only desire) go out and conquer the world to gain access to pussy?

Uh, no.

@64 "Pretty well established..." = "patriarchy and gender roles dictate..."

Alright, I'm gonna shut up now. I'm done mansplaining and I want a cookie so I'm off to the supermarket.

@56:
1) Really? I'd like to believe that.
2) The privileges I had in mind were listed in my original post. Regarding sex - there is potential power/privilege in the fact that most women have something that most men desperately want. Andrea Dworkin aside, one of the happy consequences of the women's rights movement is that women are increasingly free to use that power. (I take it from your guess that you suspect this is all related to my personal problems. Well, good news - things have dramatically improved on the home front.)
3) I think art and science, not ideology, is the way to enlighten people and improve their lives.

@58: Try elevating your testosterone levels to that of an average male, and then get back to us. Or, just read up on all the science linking testosterone to libido.

@70 "Regarding sex - there is potential power/privilege in the fact that most women have something that most men desperately want. Andrea Dworkin aside, one of the happy consequences of the women's rights movement is that women are increasingly free to use that power."

Again! Men desire - women are desired!

And so you force me to post figleaf's two rules :

1. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
2. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.

http://www.realadultsex.com/archives/200…

Imagine for just a moment that men and women have the equal ability to desire and be desired. Who then has more "power" in our world, seandr? Certainly not those who are stripped of their agency and commodified as objects to be consumed by men. Certainly not those who's bodily autonomy is equated to holding power over men from allowing them to take what they so desperately want - their bodies.

Your statement is the definition of male privilege and objectification.

@55: briantrice, your wish is my command:

@7, 21, 31 54: I would like to point out that pretty much every one of your stats are the fault of men.
Men kill themselves.
Men kill each other.
Men commit crimes and men sentence them to prison.
Men take the drugs to which they become addicted.
Men drop out of high school and college
Etc, etc.
Soooo, one wonders what exactly is your point? Because men are just as shitty to each other as they are to women that we don’t need feminism? Cuz it seems to me that your stats just reinforce how much we do need feminism, even though women don’t have a monopoly on suffering

And FYI “objectification” does not mean “traits one finds attractive”. It meansthe act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a person.


So you want “humanism” do you? Cuz the patriarchy juuuust isn’t enough for you.
PROTIP: It isn’t all about you. Sometimes it's about women

@71- You make it sound like a relationship is a contest of wills rather than a partnership.

@73: Are you kidding me?

I've certainly been the object of female desire, and I fucking live for it! I spend hours at the gym hoping to inspire it. This Saturday, a totally hot woman at the SEAF after party walked up to me and whispered in my ear that I was a great dancer, and I'm still fucking glowing from it. Trust me - I'm all in favor of female desire, perhaps too much so for my own good.

And yet, it seems to me, there are asymmetries in how men and women approach sex. I see this when I compare the sex lives gays, lesbians, and straights. I see hints of this in hormone research. It's hard to miss when you look at the sex industry, which is almost exclusively patronized by gay and straight men.

Culture certainly plays into this asymmetry - conservatives do all they can to control/suppress female sexuality. But I don't think you can dismiss on scientific grounds the role of hormones.

@72: So you’re horny. So what? Really, so what? What exactly would you like women to do about that? Or, more to the point what do you think they should do about it? What do you think our obligation to your boner should be? Because that, that right there, is male privilege in a nut shell. That you are owed pussy because you want it.
Oh and back on how much men suffer at the hands of other men for the most part? Why don’t you quit bitching about it and try to get your gender to stop being such assholes? All y’all would be happier and healthier and the women of the world would be too. Then you can have humanism! Problem solved!

Why argue with these posters railing against feminism? It's like trying to convince that other troll that black people aren't all criminals, or that period troll that posts about polygamy, etc. These trolls hate women. Period. There's no convincing them otherwise. Your energy is better served toward creating positive change, not arguing with Cro Magnons.

@76: I cannot believe that this conversation is happening AGAIN.
Please seandr, print this out and tape it to your shaving mirror.

In a sexual encounter women have more to lose, up to and including their lives.

Thus, asymmetry.

@74:
Are you saying differential incarceration rates do not constitute evidence of bias? OK, whatever you say, Justice Richard Sanders.

And you're blaming the homeless for being homeless? Classy.

And by your logic, the fact that violence against blacks is primarily committed by other blacks makes it black people's fault.

And if everyone is responsible for their own suicides, I guess you don't think much of the "It Get's Better" project.

Congratulations, you've managed to combine the stupidest elements of right-wing and left-wing dogma into a single post.

@74- In addition, Feminism is the cure for a lot of those ills.

Men don't get child custody because men are often shitty parents. Traditionally men aren't trained in child care. In a feminist household, men actually take care of a kid and are more likely to get joint custody.

Men commit acts of violence because traditionally men are trained that the masculine way to solve things is with decisive and even violent action. Men who see themselves as something other than the caveman protecting his harem don't have as much psychological impetus to beat up whatever gets in their way. Their sense of self-worth isn't entirely wrapped up in winning.

If anyone really wants to understand the condition of men in a world where feminism has made some progress, I think Stiffed by Susan Faludi is a really good source, for all that it is a decade old.

@77: I'm disputing the specific claim @58 that sexual asymmetry is a myth. Based on your comment @79, you are vehemently agreeing me. According to kersy, that makes you a shill for the patriarchy.

@80: I am saying nothing of the sort seandr. Men made the patriarchy and men suffer under its yoke. You want humanism? Then dismantle the patriarchy.

Congratulations, you've managed to combine the stupidest elements of right-wing and left-wing dogma into a post I did not write.

A 5 minutes rant for a pop song? TL;DW

@76 You don't need to desire it, it already exists. What you desire is women (who you desire, not just any slag) to want to fuck you. That's the power you keep talking about - women having this evil bodily autonomy and right to consent to NOT fuck you. You want it "desperately" (your words) and when they deny you their bodies (which belong to them) they are mean evil women with power over men's entitlement.
You hide this entitlement behind the lie that you only don't get it because women have an issue with libido. You rely on testosterone levels despite the fact that it is not the only hormone necessary for sexual desire, there's no distinct differences in hormone levels between people with naturally high, low, or no (asexual) libido and the biggest motivator for gender differences in engaging in sex (specifically casual sex) is perception of risk. Guess what happens when we equalize that risk? Women want sex as much as men. (which is what @79 is talking about)

But we can't let that slide. That would women aren't gate keepers who lounge in pretty outfits in positions to tempt the male gaze and aren't deserving of objectification, they're just human beings! like men! holy shit!

@83: Noooo. You are arguing that the asymmetry is due in some extent to hormones, thus tacitly letting men off the hook. My argument is that due to the behavior of men, (which I give your gender the credit of being able to control despite how horny you may be) women have more to lose in a sexual encounter, and thus must suppress their sexual desires. So, I’m sorry seandr, but, FAIL. Again.

As long as people are quoting me (thanks!) I might as well ask another question that I think helps illuminate the "sexual imbalance" problem.

If man Y wants sex for at five minutes a day seven days a week...
And woman X wants sex for 30 minutes twice a week...
Who's got the lower libido, Y or X?

Next question:

If man Y wants sex for five minutes a day seven days a week but only has sex for five minutes twice a week
And woman X wants sex for 30 minutes twice a week and... but only has it for five minutes twice a week
Who's more sexually frustrated, Y or X?

Now fortunately in real life many men actually want to have sex for more than five minutes at a time. But then on average heterosexual sex still lasts less than half an hour -- about 20 minutes start to finish including foreplay and intercourse if I recall correctly. The point remains though: the notion of female sexual scarcity depends a lot on how you measure it.

There might be asymmetry in frequency, but if so there's also asymmetry in duration. But that's not the same thing as scarcity. Scarcity remains a myth.

figleaf

@89: I gotta back you up on this. My two rules of desire are designed to be kind of like Murphy's Law, but it definitely is the case that Rule #1 shows up an awful lot in patriarchy. Not only do people (mostly but not entirely men) go around complaining about women and sexual scarcity, they also go around effectively policing ("slut shaming") women who *don't* keep sex scarce.

Former Seattle sex blogger Holly of The Pervocracy put it really nicely earlier today in her post "The pussy supply." (http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/05/p…)

---

"Dudes. Bros. You are facing a crisis of bromongous proportions. At a moment in history when you might have unprecedented access to that most valued commodity of the Bromantic Era--willing, accessible, uncomplicated poontang--your own brother bros are shooting you in the foot.

"It works like this: you throw a party, with lots of booze and annoying music and you invite lots of ladies. Ladies whom you hope will be eager to get in bed with you and total freaks in the sack. That would be the optimal party, right? Tons and tons of uninhibited women who dress and act sexy, like sex, are good at sex, and don't think it means you have to get married or be all weird in the morning or anything.

"And then the foot-shooting. It comes in two forms. The first is slut-shaming. When guys talk bad about women for sleeping with a lot of guys, they're signing away their chance of sleeping with those women themselves--and your chance as well. When a woman is laughed at or insulted for being a "slut," there's a very good chance she'll respond by having less casual sex, even if she likes the sex itself. Other women see this happening and don't let themselves have any casual sex in the first place. And when that happens, dudebros, everyone loses.

"The second is rape. Some frathouses and other guy-thrown parties have such bad reputations that the "she should have known better" victim-blaming comes into play for any woman who even goes there. Imagine how many women aren't showing at up at all because of this. Imagine how many of the women who do show up won't go upstairs with you because of this.

---

I happen to think Patriarchy is actually more of a co-ed affair but I think Holly, and by extension Lissa @84, gets it exactly right when she says men participate in (hetero) sexual scarcity to a disgraceful degree. I mean, yes, Seandr @73 got chatted up by a woman and didn't slam her or shame her or abuse her for it. But I'll betcha he can't go a week without seeing or hearing some other guy who does. And I'm also willing to bet he doesn't make the connection between other people's slut shaming and his sexual scarcity. And *that's also* how those of us who are men perpetuate the problem even when we ourselves lament it. It's not just enough for men to stop doing it ourselves, we have to work to stop all of it or it'll keep happening.

figleaf

@kersy --

I'd say half the reason we're still talking on this thread about men in a women's space is directly related to you feeding the troll.

The beauty of the Internet: if you don't want to read what someone writes, you don't have to.