Pre-post Addendum: It has been brought to my attention that I was operating from a faulty data set. I had only seen this hashtag hijacked and misused - it was originally supposed to be men in support of feminism, but I had seen it used as a parody of itself, as women bashing men for even daring to try to have a voice in the conversation.
The spirit has moved me to take to my keyboard again, this time in response to one of the most ludicrous hashtags it has ever been my misfortune to come across. The fact that I've even seen it at all, as a devoted non-user of Twitter, points out just how insidious it is. #AllMenCan.
This seems to be a spinoff of the well-intentioned, but ludicrous #YesAllWomen. Which, in answer, no, not all women have been victimized by men. Yes all human beings have had to deal with jerks from time to time, but this is not a gender war, and if you have ever suggested that you have been "eye raped", please go die in a fire. Having people stare at you creepily is definitely a very uncomfortable feeling, but it is not even on the same scale as being raped. You are personally perpetuating rape culture if you are diminishing rape to being stared at. Playing a victim does not make you brave - bravery is continuing on despite having had something horrific happening to you, with a smile and a can-do attitude. Crying about some guy staring at you is not brave, it is pathetic, and you are making all of us look bad.
But I digress. #Allmencan is incredibly problematic, on every level. So to keep up with the self-appointed Victim Brigade, let me point out the privilege flaws first.
1) It's ableist. Yeah, I'll bet Stephen Hawking does a lot of raping and objectifying. The monster. Every male with a major physical or mental disability is apparently not a man, because he is physically incapable of rape or domestic violence, and that's apparently the hallmark of manhood, as defined, weirdly, by someone claiming the name "feminist".
2) It's homophobic. All those gay men out there raping and abusing women! Oh wait... I guess you could make an argument for objectifying, because it was gay male designers primarily who decided that skeletal boy should be the primary look for female models, but I really doubt any gay man is entertaining thoughts of raping any ladies.
3) It's Calvinistic. Now, I have never heard a modern feminist with a good word to say about the pre-Enlightenment Christian Church, but suddenly all men exist in a state of total depravity? Such total depravity, in fact, that there is apparently nothing but a thin veneer of society, and perhaps physical disability keeping them from raping and murdering every woman they so much as look at. There has been a lot of discussion from men about how they feel diminished by the modern feminist movement, and I honestly don't blame some of them. I wouldn't like being treated like a rabid dog for my sin of being born with the wrong chromosomal set. The only bit of Calvinistic sexual doctrine that has been reversed is that women are no longer temptresses trying to lead sexually depraved men with ideas of noble will into sexual sin and eternal damnation - now it's women are perfect angels and men are little more than baboons.
4) It's self-defeating. Every time someone posts something about self-defense for women, there's a chorus of "Just teach men not to rape!". While both sides have merit (of course teach boys about consent, respect, and entitlement culture... and teach girls about self-defense and hope they never need to use the skill), #Allmencan presupposes that men are creatures without moral judgment. As amoral creatures, not held in check by anything but possibly the fear of jail or the hope of more sex, teaching them not to rape is a complete waste of time, because they can not absorb the lesson.
This is not getting into how sexist it is, or how divisive it is, but I hope that's a good basic rundown of how poisonous that philosophy is. Men and women are equally human beings. The vast majority want equal rights for everyone. But when you shut one half out of the equation by treating them with automatic suspicion, you immediately shut the conversation down. You make the conversation impossible, in fact. The #notallmen is poisonous enough in it's own way, because most men are not trying to reframe the conversation to be about themselves. They are trying to join the conversation in a way they can understand. And if they must go on the defensive, maybe you should consider how you're speaking and whether you're talking about equality or dominance.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Why Anti-Brony Culture?
So, I'm going to say this right out, I heartily enjoy the show "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". It has excellent storytelling, fun and fascinating characters, good humor, and is just an enjoyable show to watch. Lauren Faust said she wanted to make a cartoon that parents could enjoy with their daughters, and considering the general range of cartoons aimed at girls tend to be "OMG! Let's go SHOPPING!!!!" or something equally silly, I think that's a noble goal, if even setting the bar pretty low. But she succeeded so well that it crossed over from being a show parents could enjoy with their daughters to being one of those elusive cartoons that captures the 18-30 demographic just as well as the 5-13. Since I grew up in the 90's, it seemed to me to be following in the grand tradition of the Kid's WB! line-up, which was also just as popular among adults. After all, there were some really great shows, for people who weren't close-minded about animation being "just for kids". Fun, fresh cartoon series that everyone in the family can enjoy are great, and even better when it's quality family programming - where the in-jokes for the adults are somewhat obscure, not smutty.
But then I found out about the giant backlash against people who enjoyed this show. The basic argument seems to boil down to "It's creepy", so I decided to rebut each of the "creepy" arguments.
#1 - "It's creepy for men to watch a show for little girls!"
Strange. Was it also creepy for them to watch "Animaniacs", "Freakazoid", "Batman: The Animated Series", "Pinky and the Brain", "Dexter's Laboratory", "Ed, Edd, and Eddy", or "Gargoyles", to name some of the 90's cartoons that did best with the 18-30 male demographic? Is it creepy that they currently watch "Spongebob Squarepants" and "Adventure Time"? How about "Avatar: The Last Airbender"? Now, "Gargoyles", "Batman", "Avatar", and "Samurai Jack" all fit into a class of animated TV shows that are more dramas. They could conceivably be judged on a different scale, but please don't try to tell me that "Spongebob Squarepants" is a more mature work than "Friendship is Magic". Yet people don't really judge grown men for watching it. The only thing I can think of is that the shows I listed all have heavily male casts, male protagonists, and could be considered either "boy's shows" or "unisex shows". "Avatar" has the only truly gender-balanced cast, with male and female protagonists and antagonists being equal. Now, if you have a problem with adults watching animation that is not "The Simpsons" and it's ilk, that's your problem. But if you only have a problem with adults watching animation that features a primarily female cast, maybe examine why you're so bothered?
#2 - "They're all perverts!"
Far be it from me to make excuses for people who do find the ponies sexually appealing. I find that rather peculiar myself and have no wish delve more deeply into it. However, they are the minority in the fandom. The only reason I can think of for this one getting so widespread ties into the basic sexism of the previous article - that the only reason to watch a show with a primarily female cast is if one is sexually attracted to them (or gay, but that's the next item). Well... no. Female characters can be interesting to watch even if they are not sexually appealing. Hopefully very few people went into the theater for "Spirited Away" thinking what a babe Chihiro was... and I doubt many people were slavering over Grandma Sophie in "Howl's Moving Castle". Both are rightfully acknowledged as superior films that feature amazingly developed female characters. There are still reasons to watch female characters who are not sexually appealing, even if there are no sexually appealing characters anywhere else, and even if there are few male characters the male viewing audience can "sympathize" with. Studio Ghibli does not have a patent on compelling female characters that aren't sexy, and if you can't sympathize with a character because they are not your same sex, you are the one with the issue.
#3 - "They're gay!"
Why? Because liking things originally intended for the opposite gender is bad in males? Guess you guys better give up fedoras and trilby hats, then, because both originated as female clothing. Besides "gay" being an idiotic bullying term anyway, why would liking a quality show make you like someone of your same gender? Where's the connection? I'd say that MLP fans, if started young, have a leg-up on male/female relationships, because they are learning to see girls as individual, developed personalities, instead of the alien presences adolescent malehood has traditionally regarded them as.
#4 - "It's so girly!"
Watching a show causes no distinct loss in testicle or penis size, based on any scientific study. As for girly... um... really? In the last 4 seasons, a force of evil has plunged the world into eternal night, the god of chaos has turned the world inside out, a giant bug has sucked most of the life force from the main character's brother, a lost empire has reappeared an nearly been swallowed by the ghost of it's past king, and a forest of thorns has gained sentience and run rampant through the town. There have been homages to "Indiana Jones", "The Big Lebowski","Dr. Who", "Spiderman", "Escape From New York", "Top Gun", "James Bond", "Street Fighter", "Batman", "The Hulk", and "Rocky". Candy-colored ponies notwithstanding, the "girly" excuse is quite flimsy. And silly, because what's wrong with being girly? If it was immature, you may have a point, but it's not.
#5 - "It's just for girls! How could any man watch it?"
This one really hit me when Weird Al announced he was doing a voice on the show. A bunch of fathers complained on his Facebook that now they would have to give in and watch such a stupid, girly show with their little girl. Which.... WHAT!? Way to teach them from the very beginning that you consider what they're interested in lesser and things "for girls" of lower quality and less important. I'm sure my own father was grateful when the generally poor-quality "Little Mermaid" TV show was replaced in his daughter's affection by the much superior "Gargoyles", but he did not complain that he was having to spend time with his little girls, watching something they considered wonderful. Remember, dads, the creators wanted this to be a show you could like too, not just a merchandising zeitgeist of crappy songs and crappier animation. You may like it or you may not, but be glad while your little girl is watching something that idealizes friendship between characters above lying and cheating until you can have sex with the cutest boy in school.
And that's what it really all boils down to. You don't have to like the show or enjoy it or anything. But it is breaking some new ground, by being a "girl's" show that is centered around primarily female friendship, not boys, not shopping, not marriage. Female characters, with disparate personalities (not "I like sports and shopping and boys" "I like art and shopping and boys!" "We're so totally different, but are still friends!"), careers, families, lives... who make time for each other, and for saving the world. Which is fun. And funny. And well-written. View it as a positive step that there is some animation with primarily female protagonists that's good enough to field a wide audience! This hasn't happened since "The Powerpuff Girls"! Why knock someone for enjoying something positive? And really, check just how much of your disdain is really sexism.
But then I found out about the giant backlash against people who enjoyed this show. The basic argument seems to boil down to "It's creepy", so I decided to rebut each of the "creepy" arguments.
#1 - "It's creepy for men to watch a show for little girls!"
Strange. Was it also creepy for them to watch "Animaniacs", "Freakazoid", "Batman: The Animated Series", "Pinky and the Brain", "Dexter's Laboratory", "Ed, Edd, and Eddy", or "Gargoyles", to name some of the 90's cartoons that did best with the 18-30 male demographic? Is it creepy that they currently watch "Spongebob Squarepants" and "Adventure Time"? How about "Avatar: The Last Airbender"? Now, "Gargoyles", "Batman", "Avatar", and "Samurai Jack" all fit into a class of animated TV shows that are more dramas. They could conceivably be judged on a different scale, but please don't try to tell me that "Spongebob Squarepants" is a more mature work than "Friendship is Magic". Yet people don't really judge grown men for watching it. The only thing I can think of is that the shows I listed all have heavily male casts, male protagonists, and could be considered either "boy's shows" or "unisex shows". "Avatar" has the only truly gender-balanced cast, with male and female protagonists and antagonists being equal. Now, if you have a problem with adults watching animation that is not "The Simpsons" and it's ilk, that's your problem. But if you only have a problem with adults watching animation that features a primarily female cast, maybe examine why you're so bothered?
#2 - "They're all perverts!"
Far be it from me to make excuses for people who do find the ponies sexually appealing. I find that rather peculiar myself and have no wish delve more deeply into it. However, they are the minority in the fandom. The only reason I can think of for this one getting so widespread ties into the basic sexism of the previous article - that the only reason to watch a show with a primarily female cast is if one is sexually attracted to them (or gay, but that's the next item). Well... no. Female characters can be interesting to watch even if they are not sexually appealing. Hopefully very few people went into the theater for "Spirited Away" thinking what a babe Chihiro was... and I doubt many people were slavering over Grandma Sophie in "Howl's Moving Castle". Both are rightfully acknowledged as superior films that feature amazingly developed female characters. There are still reasons to watch female characters who are not sexually appealing, even if there are no sexually appealing characters anywhere else, and even if there are few male characters the male viewing audience can "sympathize" with. Studio Ghibli does not have a patent on compelling female characters that aren't sexy, and if you can't sympathize with a character because they are not your same sex, you are the one with the issue.
#3 - "They're gay!"
Why? Because liking things originally intended for the opposite gender is bad in males? Guess you guys better give up fedoras and trilby hats, then, because both originated as female clothing. Besides "gay" being an idiotic bullying term anyway, why would liking a quality show make you like someone of your same gender? Where's the connection? I'd say that MLP fans, if started young, have a leg-up on male/female relationships, because they are learning to see girls as individual, developed personalities, instead of the alien presences adolescent malehood has traditionally regarded them as.
#4 - "It's so girly!"
Watching a show causes no distinct loss in testicle or penis size, based on any scientific study. As for girly... um... really? In the last 4 seasons, a force of evil has plunged the world into eternal night, the god of chaos has turned the world inside out, a giant bug has sucked most of the life force from the main character's brother, a lost empire has reappeared an nearly been swallowed by the ghost of it's past king, and a forest of thorns has gained sentience and run rampant through the town. There have been homages to "Indiana Jones", "The Big Lebowski","Dr. Who", "Spiderman", "Escape From New York", "Top Gun", "James Bond", "Street Fighter", "Batman", "The Hulk", and "Rocky". Candy-colored ponies notwithstanding, the "girly" excuse is quite flimsy. And silly, because what's wrong with being girly? If it was immature, you may have a point, but it's not.
#5 - "It's just for girls! How could any man watch it?"
This one really hit me when Weird Al announced he was doing a voice on the show. A bunch of fathers complained on his Facebook that now they would have to give in and watch such a stupid, girly show with their little girl. Which.... WHAT!? Way to teach them from the very beginning that you consider what they're interested in lesser and things "for girls" of lower quality and less important. I'm sure my own father was grateful when the generally poor-quality "Little Mermaid" TV show was replaced in his daughter's affection by the much superior "Gargoyles", but he did not complain that he was having to spend time with his little girls, watching something they considered wonderful. Remember, dads, the creators wanted this to be a show you could like too, not just a merchandising zeitgeist of crappy songs and crappier animation. You may like it or you may not, but be glad while your little girl is watching something that idealizes friendship between characters above lying and cheating until you can have sex with the cutest boy in school.
And that's what it really all boils down to. You don't have to like the show or enjoy it or anything. But it is breaking some new ground, by being a "girl's" show that is centered around primarily female friendship, not boys, not shopping, not marriage. Female characters, with disparate personalities (not "I like sports and shopping and boys" "I like art and shopping and boys!" "We're so totally different, but are still friends!"), careers, families, lives... who make time for each other, and for saving the world. Which is fun. And funny. And well-written. View it as a positive step that there is some animation with primarily female protagonists that's good enough to field a wide audience! This hasn't happened since "The Powerpuff Girls"! Why knock someone for enjoying something positive? And really, check just how much of your disdain is really sexism.
Wow, it's been awhile. Part 3 of 3: The Sweet Girl
So... life got in the way, but here I am again to demolish the other half of the entitled coin: the Sweet Girl.
Now, let's make one thing perfectly clear. A Sweet Girl is not interested in you. She is interested in her syrupy sweet fantasy of what love is supposed to be. She is in love with love, and human realities are way too icky and cumbersome to deal with. She's the girl the media likes to accuse Disney of having raised, but even Disney throws a few little tangles in now and again to mess up that perfect compatibility of spirit that the Sweet Girl seems so hung up on.
Now, I'm not saying perfect compatibility of spirit does not exist, because I have seen examples of lovers or friends who are in such perfect harmony that they may as well be one person. No coolness, no arguments... but there are still issues. The only difference is, the people with this sort of true compatibility see issues and tackle them as a team. The Lala-land fairytale of the Sweet Girl doesn't even allow for the existence of these issues. It's impossible that who she chooses will prefer a cool bedroom with the fan running when she likes it toasty. It's totally impossible that there will be a night when all the smoke alarm batteries die at 3 AM. No way will the Man of her Dreams constantly unroll his socks before doing the laundry or forget which day the recycling goes out until there are enough empty bottles to build a replica QE2. Because it's often not the big crises, it's tiny little annoyances. In her romance-soaked brain, she can see the two of them handling disapproving parents. They can weather the storms of poverty! Their love will keep them warm when all the world rejects them! But will it keep them warm when she forgets to pay the heating bill?
Besides the romantic images completely forgetting to take the little annoyances of reality into account, there's also the problem that she really expects a psychic communion of love, and if it doesn't exist, she is deeply disturbed. Jokes abound on women expecting men to be mindreaders, but the average woman has learned that the average man can't read her thoughts. However, there's still a message out there that "If he really loved me, he would really know what the problem is", and that gets into the heads of some gullible young girls. If you are unfortunate enough to have caught yourself one of these, try having a long heart-to-heart with her.
Now, let's make one thing perfectly clear. A Sweet Girl is not interested in you. She is interested in her syrupy sweet fantasy of what love is supposed to be. She is in love with love, and human realities are way too icky and cumbersome to deal with. She's the girl the media likes to accuse Disney of having raised, but even Disney throws a few little tangles in now and again to mess up that perfect compatibility of spirit that the Sweet Girl seems so hung up on.
Now, I'm not saying perfect compatibility of spirit does not exist, because I have seen examples of lovers or friends who are in such perfect harmony that they may as well be one person. No coolness, no arguments... but there are still issues. The only difference is, the people with this sort of true compatibility see issues and tackle them as a team. The Lala-land fairytale of the Sweet Girl doesn't even allow for the existence of these issues. It's impossible that who she chooses will prefer a cool bedroom with the fan running when she likes it toasty. It's totally impossible that there will be a night when all the smoke alarm batteries die at 3 AM. No way will the Man of her Dreams constantly unroll his socks before doing the laundry or forget which day the recycling goes out until there are enough empty bottles to build a replica QE2. Because it's often not the big crises, it's tiny little annoyances. In her romance-soaked brain, she can see the two of them handling disapproving parents. They can weather the storms of poverty! Their love will keep them warm when all the world rejects them! But will it keep them warm when she forgets to pay the heating bill?
Besides the romantic images completely forgetting to take the little annoyances of reality into account, there's also the problem that she really expects a psychic communion of love, and if it doesn't exist, she is deeply disturbed. Jokes abound on women expecting men to be mindreaders, but the average woman has learned that the average man can't read her thoughts. However, there's still a message out there that "If he really loved me, he would really know what the problem is", and that gets into the heads of some gullible young girls. If you are unfortunate enough to have caught yourself one of these, try having a long heart-to-heart with her.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Part 2 of 3: Nice Guys and Sweet Girls - The Wild Wailing Nice Guy
Now, before I head off on this little jaunt, let's make one important distinction. Nice Guys are not men possessing the quality of niceness. They are males, but not men, as they are stuck in a perma-adolescence where "I want" is conflated with "I should have". Some are straight and some are gay - this is not a phenomena that can be attributed to nebulous Male Privilege, but solely to immature reasoning, entitlement, and self-obsession that borders on the myopic. Men who possess the quality of niceness are not particularly rare, though to hear a Nice Guy spouting off, niceness in a male is almost as rare as teeth are in hens.
The second important distinction is what does one mean by the quality of Nice? What is Nice? According to the dictionary, nice is: pleasing; agreeable; delightful or amiably pleasant; kind:. Therefore, a man who possesses the quality of niceness is of a relaxed disposition, pleasant and helpful, not rude, not sarcastic or unkind, charitable, and in general, a real joy to be around. He does for the sake of joy in others and in himself, without thought of tangible reward. A man who is nice is the man you call on Moving Day and the man you call when you are having a party. He likely has a wide circle of friends, and appreciates that fact. The lack of tangible reward is what trips up Nice Guys. The Nice Guy keeps a tally sheet, and seems to think everyone else does too. His "favors" are not acts of charity between friends, but more like the kind of "favors" you expect in Mafia movies. He is keeping count, and he is racking up your debt. This is a great source of irritation and frustration to him, because usually the other person doesn't even realize they have a debt. You bought pizza and beer on Moving Day, right? And when he moves, you're planning on helping him, right? Score settled on your end. On his end, he is furious that you have accepted an offer of a dinner date from a man who actually asked. You owed it to him. He helped you move!
This is where it really becomes complicated having Nice Guys in your life, especially if more than one has decided that they are in love with you. However, just one is plenty burden enough. Nice Guy has been raised on a steady diet of him being the secret Prince Charming, who Beauty will magically fix with her wonderful love. Beauty is not a person, but rather a concept. She is beautiful, she is nurturing and warm, she is probably a fantastic cook, she is wild in bed, and everyone is eaten up by envy when they see her on his arm. She makes him into a complete man. She can fix everything that has ever gone wrong in his life, and will stand by him no matter what. Nice Guys usually pick out a physical type early on that embody their Beauty - a Hot Mama, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a Willowy Muse, an Angel of the House, whatever. All that matters is that she looks like the first embodiment of their fantasies, that they have clung to since their sexual awakening. It doesn't matter if the curvy, maternal-looking girl is actually a childfree polyamorous dominatrix, or the bouncy, tiny, short girl with cute bangs would rather go to her book club and the coffee shop than go on a life-changing adventure. Nice Guy expects her to act a certain way because she looks a certain way, as well as expecting her to fall in love with him, because he is in love with what he thinks she is.
All of this is pretty confusing on the surface, but it's fairly straightforward when you look directly at it.
If you are "nice" to try to rack up points in your favor, you are not nice, you are manipulative.
If you are "nice" to people solely because of how they look, you are not nice, you are shallow.
If you are "nice" to people because you assume that is the fastest way to get them to have sex with you, you are not nice, you are predatory.
The simple, straightforward truth is that Nice Guys do not possess the quality of niceness. They believe they deserve another human being, who they do not respect as being autonomous, with individual hopes and feelings, for simple virtue of the fact that they are alive. They believe that being friends with a desirable person is a fate worse than death, because the fact that there are people who they do not want to have sex with does not enter the equation for other people. Everyone they want should want them, and if they don't, then "Women Only Date Assholes" or "Misandry". Not that I don't believe in misandry, and I'll address it in another post, but whether you are attracted to Keira Knightley or Rebel Wilson, you do not "deserve" either of them. They are both individual human beings with wills and minds of their own. You only deserve basic decency and courtesy from other people, not love, and definitely not sex. The sooner Nice Guys can get that through their heads, the happier everyone will be.
Next Up: Sweet Girls.
The second important distinction is what does one mean by the quality of Nice? What is Nice? According to the dictionary, nice is: pleasing; agreeable; delightful or amiably pleasant; kind:. Therefore, a man who possesses the quality of niceness is of a relaxed disposition, pleasant and helpful, not rude, not sarcastic or unkind, charitable, and in general, a real joy to be around. He does for the sake of joy in others and in himself, without thought of tangible reward. A man who is nice is the man you call on Moving Day and the man you call when you are having a party. He likely has a wide circle of friends, and appreciates that fact. The lack of tangible reward is what trips up Nice Guys. The Nice Guy keeps a tally sheet, and seems to think everyone else does too. His "favors" are not acts of charity between friends, but more like the kind of "favors" you expect in Mafia movies. He is keeping count, and he is racking up your debt. This is a great source of irritation and frustration to him, because usually the other person doesn't even realize they have a debt. You bought pizza and beer on Moving Day, right? And when he moves, you're planning on helping him, right? Score settled on your end. On his end, he is furious that you have accepted an offer of a dinner date from a man who actually asked. You owed it to him. He helped you move!
This is where it really becomes complicated having Nice Guys in your life, especially if more than one has decided that they are in love with you. However, just one is plenty burden enough. Nice Guy has been raised on a steady diet of him being the secret Prince Charming, who Beauty will magically fix with her wonderful love. Beauty is not a person, but rather a concept. She is beautiful, she is nurturing and warm, she is probably a fantastic cook, she is wild in bed, and everyone is eaten up by envy when they see her on his arm. She makes him into a complete man. She can fix everything that has ever gone wrong in his life, and will stand by him no matter what. Nice Guys usually pick out a physical type early on that embody their Beauty - a Hot Mama, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a Willowy Muse, an Angel of the House, whatever. All that matters is that she looks like the first embodiment of their fantasies, that they have clung to since their sexual awakening. It doesn't matter if the curvy, maternal-looking girl is actually a childfree polyamorous dominatrix, or the bouncy, tiny, short girl with cute bangs would rather go to her book club and the coffee shop than go on a life-changing adventure. Nice Guy expects her to act a certain way because she looks a certain way, as well as expecting her to fall in love with him, because he is in love with what he thinks she is.
All of this is pretty confusing on the surface, but it's fairly straightforward when you look directly at it.
If you are "nice" to try to rack up points in your favor, you are not nice, you are manipulative.
If you are "nice" to people solely because of how they look, you are not nice, you are shallow.
If you are "nice" to people because you assume that is the fastest way to get them to have sex with you, you are not nice, you are predatory.
The simple, straightforward truth is that Nice Guys do not possess the quality of niceness. They believe they deserve another human being, who they do not respect as being autonomous, with individual hopes and feelings, for simple virtue of the fact that they are alive. They believe that being friends with a desirable person is a fate worse than death, because the fact that there are people who they do not want to have sex with does not enter the equation for other people. Everyone they want should want them, and if they don't, then "Women Only Date Assholes" or "Misandry". Not that I don't believe in misandry, and I'll address it in another post, but whether you are attracted to Keira Knightley or Rebel Wilson, you do not "deserve" either of them. They are both individual human beings with wills and minds of their own. You only deserve basic decency and courtesy from other people, not love, and definitely not sex. The sooner Nice Guys can get that through their heads, the happier everyone will be.
Next Up: Sweet Girls.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Part 1 of 3: Nice Guys and Sweet Girls
So that no one thinks I'm unfairly beating up on one gender, because it's not a one-gender problem, I'm going to start out with the wrapping up. It's backwards, but sometimes I like to be a little unpredictable.
For purposes of discussion, Nice Guys are men who claim to be "nice", then whine and cry and guilt trip and act like petulant toddlers when the woman of their choice rejects them, or does not go out with them for the simple reason that they never asked. "Friendzone", "Nice Guys Finish Last", and "Girls only date assholes" are key phrases that help identify the Wild Wailing Nice Guy.
Sweet Girls are girls that will tell everyone ad nauseam about what catches they are, but they just can't hold a man, because in relationships, they are alternately smothering or sullen, depending on the man's ability to read her mind that day. She is an odd mix of Mama and Baby, and both expects you to follow every last thing she says to the letter and to take care of her outrageous neediness.
Now, some other bloggers say that the Nice Guy exists because of patriarchy, and he is inherently sexist. I am arguing against that point. The Nice Guy is usually sexist, that's true, but if he existed solely because of patriarchy, there would not be gay Nice Guys. There would not be Sweet Girls, straight and gay. It would be solely the province of straight men to complain about why they are not getting the lascivious sex they want with piles of beautiful women if this was solely the province of sexism, but instead there just exists this subset of every gender and sexuality who whines incessantly about why beautiful people are not having sex with them, and assuming it's because they are simply too good for this sinful earth.
I put this squarely on the shoulders of entitlement. "I want this thing, therefore I deserve to have it". It's like a deranged Santa Claus Syndrome, where wanting + "good" is powerful enough to overcome all pretensions to human agency. If you're good enough, it doesn't matter that Tickle Me Elmo is rarer than moon rocks set in platinum. I want one and Mama says I'm good. Good kids get what they want! Always!
The subset of Nice Guy and Sweet Girl never outgrow this. I assume they are the ones that pitched an absolute fit when Tickle Me Elmo wasn't under the tree, and had their parents placate them. I'm an English major and a daycare teacher, not a psychologist, but I assume the massive outbreak of both came around the time that a number of parents stopped explaining to children that wanting something doesn't always mean you get it. They apparently also did not explain that this applies way, way more to humans than it does to toys.
Basic human nature is to seek out companionship, and basic human nature casts oneself as the hero of ones own story. No one wants to believe that they need a lot of improving. They are Good. They are Nice. They are Sweet. They are Deserving of Love. I will not say that they are not, because maybe they are. The problem is, they have missed the step of accepting that other people are also people. Beautiful Person X is still a Person. S/he is Deserving of Love on their own terms. They can say "No, I do not love you. I love her/him/no one right now". They can say "Sorry, I do not feel any attraction to you". They do not owe you anything beyond basic human decency. If you are nice to them, they owe you niceness, but not affection, and definitely not sex. Human beings are not vending machines that you put niceness in and get sex out.
Next Week: Nice Guys in Particular.
For purposes of discussion, Nice Guys are men who claim to be "nice", then whine and cry and guilt trip and act like petulant toddlers when the woman of their choice rejects them, or does not go out with them for the simple reason that they never asked. "Friendzone", "Nice Guys Finish Last", and "Girls only date assholes" are key phrases that help identify the Wild Wailing Nice Guy.
Sweet Girls are girls that will tell everyone ad nauseam about what catches they are, but they just can't hold a man, because in relationships, they are alternately smothering or sullen, depending on the man's ability to read her mind that day. She is an odd mix of Mama and Baby, and both expects you to follow every last thing she says to the letter and to take care of her outrageous neediness.
Now, some other bloggers say that the Nice Guy exists because of patriarchy, and he is inherently sexist. I am arguing against that point. The Nice Guy is usually sexist, that's true, but if he existed solely because of patriarchy, there would not be gay Nice Guys. There would not be Sweet Girls, straight and gay. It would be solely the province of straight men to complain about why they are not getting the lascivious sex they want with piles of beautiful women if this was solely the province of sexism, but instead there just exists this subset of every gender and sexuality who whines incessantly about why beautiful people are not having sex with them, and assuming it's because they are simply too good for this sinful earth.
I put this squarely on the shoulders of entitlement. "I want this thing, therefore I deserve to have it". It's like a deranged Santa Claus Syndrome, where wanting + "good" is powerful enough to overcome all pretensions to human agency. If you're good enough, it doesn't matter that Tickle Me Elmo is rarer than moon rocks set in platinum. I want one and Mama says I'm good. Good kids get what they want! Always!
The subset of Nice Guy and Sweet Girl never outgrow this. I assume they are the ones that pitched an absolute fit when Tickle Me Elmo wasn't under the tree, and had their parents placate them. I'm an English major and a daycare teacher, not a psychologist, but I assume the massive outbreak of both came around the time that a number of parents stopped explaining to children that wanting something doesn't always mean you get it. They apparently also did not explain that this applies way, way more to humans than it does to toys.
Basic human nature is to seek out companionship, and basic human nature casts oneself as the hero of ones own story. No one wants to believe that they need a lot of improving. They are Good. They are Nice. They are Sweet. They are Deserving of Love. I will not say that they are not, because maybe they are. The problem is, they have missed the step of accepting that other people are also people. Beautiful Person X is still a Person. S/he is Deserving of Love on their own terms. They can say "No, I do not love you. I love her/him/no one right now". They can say "Sorry, I do not feel any attraction to you". They do not owe you anything beyond basic human decency. If you are nice to them, they owe you niceness, but not affection, and definitely not sex. Human beings are not vending machines that you put niceness in and get sex out.
Next Week: Nice Guys in Particular.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
First Rant: "Obesity Enabling"
So, lots of people have been telling me I should start a blog, and they would totally read it if I did. So I did, here I am, and here it is. I know it needs some work, but for now, I'm just writing. Who knows what my update schedule will be? It will be primarily when something pisses me off, piques my interest, or just generally sets me into rant mode.
Without further ado, here is my first Peeve du Jour: "Obesity Enabling"
Now, for those that don't know me personally, I am a fat woman. I struggled with bulimia from age 12 to age 25. I am about to turn 27 (almost two years purge-free!). I am currently training for the Highland Games, and I could probably benchpress most of the people who like to complain about "fat, lazy slobs" while they rely on their fantastic metabolisms to burn off the potato chips they're eating. I have been the subject of some truly vicious fat-bullying, such as having things thrown at me out of car windows, having food snatched out of my hands, and being called names like "Whale", "Pig", "Cow", and "Lardass" in public by complete strangers. I have even been fat-bullied in the gym (not my current gym, which is awesome, but a previous gym I went to).
Confused by this epidemic of abuse, I went to my computer, and I found out from Pandora's box that all of this was 100% totally justified, because we don't want to "enable obesity". That just sent my eyebrows rocketing up into my hairline, because since when is absence of abuse "enabling"? But it gets better. Apparently heavy women should not be in catalogues modelling clothes, because letting us fat people know that we can buy clothes at your store in "enabling". Golly Gee, I thought I was going to have to cut a hole in a king-size bed sheet and buy some binder twine to fashion some sort of rudimentary chiton, but now I know I can just go to Kohls and buy from their plus-size department. But I can't! Because them advertising that they have a plus-size department is "enabling"!
I've asked, and they have said they don't want young people to get the idea that being overweight or obese is okay. I asked where they could get that idea. Apparently making clothes in large sizes for large people will give young people the idea that it's totally okay to be big, and showing fat people who are not sobbing in misery for being so shamefully unattractive will give them leave to get fat themselves. By that logic, every smiling parapelegic will give kids the idea that it's okay to dive into the shallow end of the swimming pool and those photos making the rounds of the triple amputee veteran and his lovely bride will inspire young people to whip out the old hacksaw in the quest to find true love.
Some of them take the tack that they are just concerned about health. I also assume that these people go around punching smokers right in the face and beating alcoholics with barstools. After all, they are health crusaders. HEALTH. DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT'S UNHEALTHY!!!! Well, yes, we can read. We are blared with the message 24/7, just like you are, except, unlike you, we do not have fantastic metabolisms. I bring up being bullied in the gym to these health people, to see if they'll get tongue-tied, but they have the gall to tell me it's for my own good. I suppose I am supposed to exercise in a burqa until my jiggle is 100% Gym-Rat Approved Booty Shake. Or maybe I'm allowed 5 lbs of fat to burn off. They're not too clear on what's Never Acceptable vs. what's Sometimes Acceptable.
Now, here's the other kicker. When I delve into my medical history, the HEALTH people all back off a bit. They say that they don't mean people like me, with legit medical conditions should be bullied and shamed and treated like victims in the Roman circus. Just everybody else. But then the question becomes, why should I have to divulge my medical history to every single human being I come across just to be treated like a fellow human being with thoughts and feelings? I don't have "Former Bulimic with Ovarian Cysts" tattooed on my forehead. I don't want to do that either, it sounds really tacky, and extremely hard to cover up. How about you Obesity Police just treat other people like human beings?
For an extra dash of irony, though, it's recently been proven that fat-shaming and bullying cause weight gain. So the Obesity Police are actually the ones "Enabling Obesity".
Without further ado, here is my first Peeve du Jour: "Obesity Enabling"
Now, for those that don't know me personally, I am a fat woman. I struggled with bulimia from age 12 to age 25. I am about to turn 27 (almost two years purge-free!). I am currently training for the Highland Games, and I could probably benchpress most of the people who like to complain about "fat, lazy slobs" while they rely on their fantastic metabolisms to burn off the potato chips they're eating. I have been the subject of some truly vicious fat-bullying, such as having things thrown at me out of car windows, having food snatched out of my hands, and being called names like "Whale", "Pig", "Cow", and "Lardass" in public by complete strangers. I have even been fat-bullied in the gym (not my current gym, which is awesome, but a previous gym I went to).
Confused by this epidemic of abuse, I went to my computer, and I found out from Pandora's box that all of this was 100% totally justified, because we don't want to "enable obesity". That just sent my eyebrows rocketing up into my hairline, because since when is absence of abuse "enabling"? But it gets better. Apparently heavy women should not be in catalogues modelling clothes, because letting us fat people know that we can buy clothes at your store in "enabling". Golly Gee, I thought I was going to have to cut a hole in a king-size bed sheet and buy some binder twine to fashion some sort of rudimentary chiton, but now I know I can just go to Kohls and buy from their plus-size department. But I can't! Because them advertising that they have a plus-size department is "enabling"!
I've asked, and they have said they don't want young people to get the idea that being overweight or obese is okay. I asked where they could get that idea. Apparently making clothes in large sizes for large people will give young people the idea that it's totally okay to be big, and showing fat people who are not sobbing in misery for being so shamefully unattractive will give them leave to get fat themselves. By that logic, every smiling parapelegic will give kids the idea that it's okay to dive into the shallow end of the swimming pool and those photos making the rounds of the triple amputee veteran and his lovely bride will inspire young people to whip out the old hacksaw in the quest to find true love.
Some of them take the tack that they are just concerned about health. I also assume that these people go around punching smokers right in the face and beating alcoholics with barstools. After all, they are health crusaders. HEALTH. DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT'S UNHEALTHY!!!! Well, yes, we can read. We are blared with the message 24/7, just like you are, except, unlike you, we do not have fantastic metabolisms. I bring up being bullied in the gym to these health people, to see if they'll get tongue-tied, but they have the gall to tell me it's for my own good. I suppose I am supposed to exercise in a burqa until my jiggle is 100% Gym-Rat Approved Booty Shake. Or maybe I'm allowed 5 lbs of fat to burn off. They're not too clear on what's Never Acceptable vs. what's Sometimes Acceptable.
Now, here's the other kicker. When I delve into my medical history, the HEALTH people all back off a bit. They say that they don't mean people like me, with legit medical conditions should be bullied and shamed and treated like victims in the Roman circus. Just everybody else. But then the question becomes, why should I have to divulge my medical history to every single human being I come across just to be treated like a fellow human being with thoughts and feelings? I don't have "Former Bulimic with Ovarian Cysts" tattooed on my forehead. I don't want to do that either, it sounds really tacky, and extremely hard to cover up. How about you Obesity Police just treat other people like human beings?
For an extra dash of irony, though, it's recently been proven that fat-shaming and bullying cause weight gain. So the Obesity Police are actually the ones "Enabling Obesity".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)