I would also note that the distinction between socially conditioned attraction and any other kind of attraction that may exist is not a clear and simple one, and this may be another source of difficulty. It’s not like the experiences come with labels indicating their origin.

Moderator - Have you considered writing down some guidelines for participation in the discussions and put them somewhere that new visitors will see them? It’s a somewhat Orwellian state of affairs when people get kicked out for breaking unwritten rules.

I frequently visit this site and greatly enjoy your blog, and in fact I agree with virtually everything Stan and others have to say about gender. I’m perfectly content with just reading and learning and so have never thought to contribute; except now. I cannot understand why in the world Consumer was tossed of the blog. Granted, I did not agree with much of what he was saying, but he demonstrated that he was open to self-reflection and was not, at least in my opinion, in any way disrespectful to other participants (though I’m not sure what Yolanda was referring to when she referenced his “white supremacist interaction”). I understand that you don’t want flamers on the site, but I’m stuck with the feeling that Consumer has been banned he showed an unwillingness to fully agree with some fellow bloggers. I don’t see how this is constructive, since I honestly believe he could have been reached.

Concerned

Given your blatantly white supremacist interaction here a few weeks ago, I can’t figure out for the life of me why you weren’t BOUNCED. But it ain’t my call, so I digress. Anyway, if you’re going to participate here, please learn to keep your mouth shut long enough to listen. You see, you know absolutely NOTHING about the basic interaction between men and women in patriarchy; in fact, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you know next to nothing about men. So why are you arguing with folks, huh? Come on now.

Get it together or leave it alone, dude. I’m serious.

MODERATOR’S NOTE: We have grown weary, and Consumer will be posting elsewhere.

“Counterproductive” my ass, Consumer. Whether or not the conversation is “productive”, as far as both parties learning from it and the criticized party learning how to act right leans highly upon Y’ALL’s DEFENSIVENESS.

If you’re too defensive to learn and to listen, then that ain’t my problem. It’s yours. Deal with it, go chew your nails over it, do whatever you need to do in order to accept that as a person in a privileged position YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP SOME PRIVILEGE IN ORDER TO MAKE CHANGE. That means that when you talk stupid, you don’t piss and moan when someone highlights it, especially someone who’s talking from a space that isn’t so privileged.

If you are refusing to do that then my suggestion is that you admit to yourself that you are struggling and clinging and clawing around in order to preserve the male privilege that you enjoy.

Ok. That’s all for now. Really.

Consumer actually comes closest to being totally honest about it, I think, yet falls short at the whole “I just can’t help what I like” marker.

I’m glad that folks are saying that they are “willing to work” on stuff. Yay. That’s just dandy.

But you need to be honest with yourselves, here. This is a very important point, and it’s not OK that it’s the last on everyone’s list.

I refuse to believe that the men who are stating that they “have a hard time” with the issue of objectifying and codifying their relations with women on the basis of said women’s “fuckability” can honestly say they’ve never, ever been “attracted” to a woman who wasn’t “fuckable” upon initial “measuring.”

You men, are you saying that you just don’t talk to “ugly” women? That you judge a woman completely and totally on this basis? Or are you saying that you won’t use an “ugly” or “unfuckable” woman as a masturbatory aide (i.e. for sex)?

And while I’m at it, I would like a breakdown of EXACTLY what difficulties y’all are stumbling over, here. You want to figure out how to “overcome” what’s going on in your heads, then you have to really be honest about it and not attempt to gloss it over. When you do this thing, when you measure women at first site based solely upon your definition of attractiveness, or “fuckability,” (which HAS been formed culturally) then all the other shit that you’re here patting yourselves on the head for gets kinda cancelled out. You have to stop thinking that you have some sort of “right”, abstractly or materially, to judge women on the basis of their looks. You don’t. Until you get that down you are, for all intents and purposes, still a misogynistic bastard and you don’t get any sort of “brownie points” for whatever schmarmy philosophizing you might do about how “far you’ve come”.

And as far as the “soft approach” that Consumer suggests in order to avoid bruising the amazingly-fragile-for-their-enormously-sized egos of the white men who post here. Fuck that shit. Here’s why: In my daily life and activism as a union organizer, I deal with macho, macho men on a daily basis. I have to be the fat lady that leads these men in their activism. That means I have to make them respect me. Given y’alls attitudes, as you’ve expressed them here, in regards to “first impressions” and the ways that you measure women, I think it’s pretty self-explanatory as to why that’s hard. Now, put on your little thinking caps one more time and try and come up with a good goddam reason that I should have to hold back when I post on this forum in response to backwards, oppressive, misogyny that is clearly spelled out in english characters and very, very easy to dissect?

The men I work with are primarily men of color; and yeah. They have their own set of internalized white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchal notions that I have to combat while combating my OWN white privilege at the same time. I see it for what it is (white supremacist/ male supremacist) because I know from head-on experience that where I can’t get a guy to sit still and listen to me that, most of the time, my white-ass boss can do it. I’ll “work with” these men in questions of male supremacy. I will not, however, curb my words here. Go post on the Huff Po if you want kid gloves. I take those damn things off the second I get home and sit down to type.

So to recap: 1. you don’t get off without dealing with #4 in a real and concrete way and 2. the women who post on here have earned their voice. Quit trying to squash it.

Thanks.

Sometimes we rely on men to help provide that because we can’t seem to earn as much money to support ourselves as they do, or we can’t earn a living on our own when we’re in the hospital with a pregnancy that’s gone wrong in some way, or we can’t figure out how to pay for daycare and food and rent and health care on a single salary. Sometimes we stay with men who are abusive - have sex with them, even - because the alternative is not knowing if we’re going to have a roof over our heads or where our next meal is coming from if we leave.

That’s not romance; it’s fear.

And it’s not right for any man to sit back and say there’s no point in trying to change that because that’s how women want it to be.

“STAN: Half right.”

Cheap but chuckle worthy. I second every thing that Stan has inserted into Consumer’s post.

Your starter list would rewrite the program, and that’s great in that it might lead to more humane and aware thinking, translating to action.

However, with regard to (4), I’d say this is different from all the rest in that it seems that you’re advocating changing a person’s likes and dislikes. I mean, I can consciously change my behavior to stop using certain language. But I can’t “will” myself to take a liking to, say, chicken sashimi. I think the same holds true with physical attraction between people. Media-concocted or no, people are attracted to certain types of people. So I think you should clarify what you mean by “measuring” women.

STAN: Clarify? This wasn’t clear? Is it impossible for you to consider that you might be wrong, or are we headed down an extremely long and tedious path? Your example about food just made MY point. There is not some gene that sets the standard for female sexual objectification (men’s version of “desirability”) as being hairless, anorexic, painted to look like a pre-adolescent, and jacked up on debilitating spiked heels. Do you think a gene makes Koreans like kimchee, when most Americans can’t eat it? (I can, and do, because I practiced. Love it now, and eat it every chance I get.)

And you damn well CAN will yourself to change. Invest half the energy you have in ducking and dodging the reality of gendered power, and you’ll be there in no time. Enjoy your sashimi.

CONSUMER: Which brings us to the very real biological roles that James touches upon. The current paradigm ensures that even women (quite a few!) are looking for strong men to be providers. To sweep them off their feet. To lead in a dance, etc. (we all know the tired cliches, for more check out any number of classified ads on Match.com). So unless you’re talking about massive restructuring of societal norms, gendered roles will always exist. Not just in the US but all over the world.

STAN: I am not among the solopsistic crew that claims there is not difference between men and women. I have never mensturated. I have never been pregnant. I cannot lactate. I can get cancer of the prostate. But difference has to be extricated from heirarchy.

But you leap from a general claim of difference directly to roles that are constructed socially… like provider. And yes, what some of us are working toward is a world where women need not fear nor be forced into dependence upon men.

I’m posting this albeit by shortcutting the response inside it, but you are gonna raise more hackles than mine with that provider, sweeping-off-the-feet thing.

CONSUMER: To take issue with the balance of power between these roles is one thing. But to abolish it or ridicule it in it’s current form is counterproductive (e.g., mocking alpha-types posters by calling them “Real Men”).

STAN: I mock them because they are trying to be bullies. That kind of behavior is posturing and a power-play, and it needs to be called out as posturing and power-play. There is a place in society for shame. It’s what we tell a child who is being socialized not to hit other kids: Shame on you.

And we will keep on mocking them, or throwing them out altogether. That kind of shit is a pattern that triggers a fight-or-flight response for many women — straight out of their life experience — and while we’re not trying to restrict the site based on phenotype, this behavior will be ridiculed, then expelled. This will be a relatively safe-feeling space for women to post without having to put up with that shit… or at least we are trying.

It is NOT counterproductive from a lot of people’s point of view; in fact, more than one woman has asked us to be more unforgiving. Men are entitled, if they behave, to post here. I am a man, last time I checked. But you are not entitled to have anyone treat you with kid gloves when you are being offensive. If that doesn’t work for you, then there are gazillions of other blogs out there.

Do you hear what you just said? Let me rephrase it:

“To take issue with the balance of power between the roles of slave and master is one thing. But to abolish it or ridicule it in it’s current form is counterproductive.”

CONSUMER: That’s what I meant by replacement of masculinity in it’s current form. For example, here on a microcosm level, instead of ridiculing a poster right off the bat for exhibiting defensiveness that may or may not stem from indoctrined masculinity, it might be more productive to appeal to positive aspects of masculinity, e.g., “a gentleman wouldn’t make such a comment when someone is obviously upset”. That sounds dumb but you know what I mean.

STAN: Half right.

I ain’t tryin’ to promote any more gentlemen. How the hell is it that any time bullying behavior is called out, the bullies become the victims?

CONSUMER: I must work (your site is killing me!)

STAN: Me, too.