It’s Really Time for the Harassment to End

[seabeyond]

Often men’s impulses to coerce and degrade women seem to express not a confident assumption of dominance but a desire to retaliate for feelings of rejection, humiliation, and impotence: as many men see it, they need women sexually more than women need them, an intolerable balance of power.

Of course, the reason it feels intolerable is that, from the cradle, men are told they are better than women and that women exist to serve them: sexually, domestically, and at times, in the workplace. Growing up and wanting something from women and finding out that they can say “no”—despite the fact that they were put here to serve you!—is often extremely distressing to men. The invention of the nonsense word “misandry” goes back to this. Men who fling it about are, in my experience, usually referring to women refusing to give them something they believe they’re owed: sex, attention, placating smiles, demurely wiping tables while the men are talking. When women deny them what they believe women owe them, instead of asking if in fact they were owed these things, they instead lash out at women. They sexually harass them, which is a way of saying that you have no right to give them no attention, so if you don’t give them the positive attention they desire, they will extract some attention from you, even if it’s just annoyance or fear. Anti-choice men come from the same mentality, I’ve learned from dealing with them. Their anger at rejection from women gets projected onto the fetus, or even to sperm. They convince themselves that there was some sort of patriarchal paradise in the past when women didn’t get to say no to men, and believe that if they could at least revoke women’s legal right to say no to a man impregnating her, they could have those days back.

So when this man leans across the aisle into my personal space and asks me, yes, what are you reading, I assertively but calmly tell him to please leave me alone, I am reading. The man stands up, moving to the front and muttering angrily over his shoulder that it isn’t his fault I’m pretty.

Jen McCreight has hung up her marvelous blog Blag Hag, even though she loves writing, because of all the abuse she’s been getting due to the rest storm in the atheist blogosphere over whether or not women are required to give any man attention because he wants it. The feminists say no, and support policies at conventions that state clearly to men that women’s consent matters. If a woman declines to give you anything—sex, flirting, any kind of attention—that is her right, and exacting your revenge by harassing her is unacceptable. A loud minority of atheist dudes find this unacceptable, and refuse to budge from their belief that they are owed women’s attention. They claim “free speech” gives them a right to an audience with the woman of their choosing, and claim that the requirement that a woman consents to an interaction means the end of flirting and sex. They grind their teeth over and over at the nerve of Rebecca Watson saying that it’s not cool to corner an unwilling woman in an elevator; their “right” to have a woman’s attention if they want it means that they are allowed any tactic, no matter how scary, to extract that attention, even if it means approaching a woman when she literally has no immediate means of escape. Hitting on a woman in an enclosed space sends the signal that she is not allowed, in your opinion, to decline the interaction. The anti-feminists occasionally pull sad faces and say they’re sorry that it has to be this way, but a man’s right to “free speech”, i.e. to extract attention from any woman at any time, trumps a woman’s right to free association.

To say otherwise—to say that a woman has a right to decline to give you attention—is “misandry”. The response to women who state boldly that a woman’s consent is required for any interaction has been many variations of “I’ll give you something to cry about.” Richard Dawkins raising the subject of serious oppression of women in some Muslim countries. Translation: “You should be grateful that we’re only demanding forced flirting, because there’s a lot more hellish things we could force you to do.” Many, many rape threats thrown at female bloggers who speak out: “You think forced flirting is bad, but there’s worse things we could force on you.” The notion of abandoning force altogether is preposterous to these men. There will always be force, they seem to be saying. Extracting what you desire from women by force is just the way of the world. You should be grateful that we demand so little of you, in terms of non-consensual interactions.

*

A quick word about the women: It’s not all men who do this. As the targets of the atheist anti-feminist campaigns know, there are many, many women involved, too. They may even be a sadder case, like this woman:




In my experience, these women are also reacting to deep-set fears of rejection. But women aren’t raised in a culture that tells them they’re entitled to attention from men. We’re told instead that we have to earn it. And one reliable way of earning positive attention from men is to bash other women, especially women who speak out against sexism. If you’re really good at it, you can make a career out of it. See: Ann Coulter, S.E. Cupp and many right wing women like them. But even if you don’t do it professionally, there are many rewards. See this woman’s tweet. For selling out other women like this, she is rewarded by so much positive male attention. Fears of rejection are safely silenced for a long time. Granted, she’s getting positive attention from assholes, but sadly, many women don’t realize that there’s an alternative. Excuse sexist behavior from men, get to be told you’re the exception. You’re not like those other girls, the bitchy ones. You’re special. It can be very intoxicating.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

_________________________

this whole article is worth the read.

We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives.

i am having a lot of issues with what i read on du, what i see in india, and though they are two very wide examples my thought has been that the underlying issue is " We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives." this is what allows all of it. from the very little of "smile" to the very extreme of gang rape and men being entertained with gang rape.

what i have learned over the last couple years on the net, because it is not in my real life with the men i allow in my life, is the men that choose to denigrate women do not pull off what they think they are. they feel that they are making women inferior to their superiority. but, what i always come away with when i read comments to denigrate women is the feel that the man is very weak, unsure, lacking. they do not get that, though, they may feel that they rise to alpha with their male peers, they do the exact opposite with women.

but, i feel today there is so much of this and all of our culture encourages this. i feel the net reinforces this. i feel this is really changing who we are as a people.

my son did an excellent report i read the other day about the internet behavioral modification, well documented. about the internet effect who we are as people. changing our brain triggers. it was very insightful and informative and had me thinking a bit more.

[Flabbergasted]

1. "The invention of the nonsense word misandry"?

[seabeyond]

2. yes. and? is this all you get and the reason the writer stated this? i think this would

fall into pretty much what she is saying thru out her article.

good illustration.

and

thanks for playing, i assume, since this is all you give.

[Flabbergasted]

3. To prostrate a word that describes her...

I know you'll deny this, but this article does have a very broad brush. I know there are some really jackass men in the world. Reading this article denigrates all of them.

Thanks for your response.

On edit, even the guys shirt in the cartoon says none other than: SHIT.

[Sheldon Cooper]

4. The guy in the cartoon has the word 'shit' on his shirt.

We have no way of knowing what he typed to the woman on the internet, but type he did, and whatever he wrote obviously made him feel good.

Oh, and misandry is a nonsense word. While there are indeed women who hate men, there is no comparison to the power inherent in misogyny, and to pretend that they're the same is simply laughable.

[Flabbergasted]

5. Contrasting two words that describe hate is not the context or purpose of the article

If the article was about misogyny being more "powerful" than misandry, that would be true.

I think the cartoon really points at the encompassing attitude of the article for two reasons: the depiction of the character himself, and the fact that the article has little to do with online interactions. Perhaps the author is suggesting that anonymity allows men let loose their inner misogynist. But the cartoon seems so over the top: all the details so angry.

Perhaps I'm being the SHIT.

Thanks for replying.

[Sheldon Cooper]

7. Well, you were the one who mentioned the nonsense word misandry, in your very

first response. You seemed to take offense with the characterization, so I assumed you wanted to address it.

And that article clearly states that men often threaten women with rape, online, when they aren't getting what they feel they deserve from them. So yes, I think that is one of the main points of the article. Finally, do you really think the cartoon is over the top? I do not. I've seen people behave just that badly, even here on this progressive website.

[Flabbergasted]

9. I don't find it offensive to say that misandry is essentially nonsense.

I think it's nonsense to say that misandry is nonsense. The argument really is about the belief that bigotry is justified for some but not for others.

The article makes some good points besides. I don't understand the reference to Dawkins however.

My speculation is the article at large has a lot to do with the "derailing tactics" mentioned near the end. I think this article is to some degree personally directed at the individual she had a twitter argument with. i believe this explains some of the comments she makes including the "misandry nonsense" comment. I admit this is just speculation. Please read my comment referring to the picture in my reply to seabeyond.

Thanks for the reply.

[ismnotwasm]

10. It's the gender equivalent of 'reverse racism'

When used to describe a social force, or social expectations, so in that context it is nonsense. While misandry is a valid descriptor in individual cases, it in no way describes gendered power structures. Patriarchy does that.

[Flabbergasted]

11. Right. In the case of the article we are discussing...

social interactions with individuals: "men that fling the word about," and not society at large.

Thanks for your reply.

[ismnotwasm]

12. You're most welcome.

[seabeyond]

6. again, reading the article with the diversion it is not ALL men, would be one of the many points

of the article.

do you really think she is talking about all men?

[Flabbergasted]

8. No. Her article would not have any credibility if she literally described all men in this way...

However, no group is rejected. Atheists, liberals, conservatives (of course). No, the author is not claiming every man is as described. She clearly states "some men" and implies certain groups of men.

I think the joke is quite revealing: she makes a joke about men having entitlement issues because they couldn't get laid in high school. Oh hey it's just a joke. I'm not describing all men who didn't get laid in high school just that those men who couldn't get laid in high school have entitlement issues. Never mind that the joke is juvenile, and sexist but also insulting. Basically she's saying that men who have "entitlement issues" had trouble luring their peers into bed. They lack sexual prowess and are not sexually attractive. When a "liberal" points out that the statement is insulting she insists she didn't mean "all men" just the men that want her attention like the tweeter himself. Later she describes him as having entitlement issues because he wants her attention and then by definition must not be sexually attractive or coercive. If a man suggests a women can't get laid he is saying she is not sexually attractive. If a woman says a man can't get laid she is saying he is not sexually coercive.

"I knew right away that this guy was suffering from serious entitlement issues. I can tell from the first words they type." How? What is the tell? Or is this a blatant bias? Notice she sets up a sexual standard to arbitrarily include anyone who disagrees with her.

"But I played along for a couple tweets..." Since this guy has obvious entitlement issues , because he is sexually unviable, I am justified in not taking his claims seriously and am allowed to "play" with him.

"When I got off the phone, I saw he had flooded me with demands mostly of the derailing sort." She means he offered rebuttals to her arguments or justifications. It's interesting that she uses the word derailing several times. "Derailing tactics." It's difficult to access what these are because no information is given to highlight what these statements might have been or whether they had any merit.

"Joking" in many cases is a way of saying stuff we'd like to say but can't because it's insulting or degrading. And she never suggests that the standard itself is in any sense misguided or flawed because she clearly believed her premise. She describes an argument that she has defending her belief. I thought the author would say eventually that she didn't mean the joke literally. She goes on and on describing men not getting laid in high school as having a real psychological problem later in life. It's just a false premise.

Now lets place the little guy in the cartoon into context. "That little shit is trying to degrade me because he can't get laid". He is obviously a teenager, he is unnatractive, lacks persuasive ability, spends his time on the computer, and is sexually repressed. Because of this he is taking it out on women to satisfy his entitlement issues. Notice she starts and ends the article with this.

Thanks for your reply.

[seabeyond]

14. interesting.

something i have noticed. entitlement to sex. to say a woman can not get laid does little to a woman. why? cause we know this is a reality and we do not expect it. to say a man cannot get laid is the ultimate in insult. why? cause they are entitled to sex. society, media culture tell them so. and this is where the issue lies. when men say that sexism (misandry) is equivalent to misogyny, they ignore the history. the oppression and subjugation of history. they are not equal and cannot be. that is the dismissal in this article when men yell misandry. and yes, this poster is suggesting the men that behave this way are men thats sexual history does not meet their expectation of entitlement. and it pisses them off. and it makes them desire to reduce women to a position so they can feel superior, so their masulinity is in tack since all of the culture defines their masculinity in this manner. i do not see the writer wrong on this. if you read what i posted after posting this article, you will see that i say, when a man denigrates female i see them in this manner also. most women do. that has been our experience in life. conclusions we draw.

men that have healthy sex lives do not seem to behave in this manner or have the need to denigrate women in this manner.

as a woman and having talked about this issue for years on a social network board, we see the pattern consistently. at a point, one is going to draw conclusions in this manner, and why not. it is our experience, not yours. you are not living it. you may see it here and there when it is in your face and obvious. you probably miss 90% or so of it also because it is not in your realm of interest nor does it really effect you.

[ismnotwasm]

13. This really is an interesting little read

I wish people, all people, understood sexual, or gendered entitlement. It seems as though it's so hard to explain, no matter how many articles or how many women post or write or talk about, no matter the statistics or rather the topic of the statistics--everything from sexual violence to tenure to political leaders, no how much suffering women go through, no matter the assault on reproductive rights, the entitled male will, in the end, will make it all about him

[seabeyond]

15. i liked the part about the smile. that one to me is such an in your face example.

One of the most common microaggressions women complain about is walking down the street and being told by strange men to “smile”. This phenomenon appears to cut across race, class, and age boundaries. It’s aggravating because it’s an assertion of this male entitlement, of course. The man is doing what Podhoretz here is doing, which is asserting a right to have women decorate his environment with pretty smiles, whether they want to or not. But it’s also because it’s so fucking illogical. Why on earth would women walk down the street just grinning for no reason? Why should Sandra Fluke smile while she speaks of heavy topics like women’s rights and being the target of a nationwide harassment campaign? The only way you believe that this even makes sense is if you grant women no right to an interior life at all, but instead see women as nothing more than living dolls that exist to serve men’s desires. It’s aggravating.

Of course, Fluke does have genuine smiles in her facial expression repertoire, so the claims of a “perma-smirk” are just a lie. It’s Podhoretz’s sense of entitlement that distorts reality. He believes women owe him light, cheerful expressions most of the time, so when a woman deviates from that script, he convinces himself that is all she does. In the same way, the anti-feminists in the atheist community claim that because the feminists object to non-consensual flirting, that means they must be against all flirting, despite the easily obtained evidence that feminists flirt and date and have all sorts of fun. You know, just consensually. Some anti-feminists, when confronted with this evidence, simply accuse feminists of “hypocrisy”, which only makes sense if you believe that a willingness to flirt with one man means an obligation to flirt with all. This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, has resulted in many rapists getting away from the charges by arguing that the victim was no virgin.

i agree though. i think it is so very hard to explain because one has to experience it. and the decades that young girls to women experience it. decades. how can a man grasp it just in words. but, i agree. and that is the biggest point i find in this article. though some of this is so little and easy to ignore, it is the core of perception toward women that do so much harm from a cimple "smile" to gang rape. in my mind.

[Flabbergasted]

16. Honestly seabeyond I looked this up: "men asking woman to smile."

To my astonishment, ignorance and shame there are numerous articles discussing this obviously degrading behavior. Sadly the men that do this probably don't realize that it is degrading.

I don't want to suggest the premise of the article is wrong, lots of valid information. I just replied because of the misandry nonsense comment.

I like to discuss things in a civil way and I appreciate your reply.

[ismnotwasm]

17. It's about expectations, yes?

To be asked to 'Smile' at the face of it, appears to be innocuous and pleasant. If it was gentle flirting, or even done with a kind intent, there wouldn't be those numerous articles. It's what happens after.
The 'other' types of comments or behaviors that follow when an innocent sounding gesture is ignored or rejected.

Or, as is so often stated one way or another the feeling of entitlement that certain males have when they see a female that attracts them. If rejected, these males become angry, and the actual rejection is only a small part of the cause of anger. The larger part is seeing the objectified female, who is not an actual human being, she exists for the sexual comfort of the male, not to always end in sexual congress obviously, but to be responsive and compliant to any gesture, offer or expression. To 'lighten up' if certain comments bother them.

Women live in fear you know; and not of the same type and quality men do, we are raised to fear the intent of the stranger male and unprotected situations. I believe that this is why there is so still so much 'she asked for it' attitudes in situations of assault or simply harassment. Women who don't appear to fear enough, or to fear properly. It's in our subconscious perhaps.