I do love my 13-year-old godson. He is not only intelligent, kind, and wickedly funny, but also incisive. He saw me reading an article the Good Men Project titled Seeing a Woman: A Conversation Between a Father and a Son. Author Nate Pyle wrote what he plans to tell his son once the boy is older and “catch[es] his eye doing what male eyes do well – following an object of lust.”
Pyle states, “I saw you look at her. I’m not judging you or shaming you. I know why you did. I get it. But we have to talk about it because how you look at a woman matters.”
Yet what follows is nothing less than shaming:
A lot of people will try and tell you that a woman should watch how she dresses so she doesn’t tempt you to look at her wrongly. Here is what I will tell you. It is a woman’s responsibility to dress herself in the morning. It is your responsibility to look at her like a human being regardless of what she is wearing. You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing – or not wearing. But don’t.Don’t play the victim. You are not a helpless victim when it comes to your eyes. You have full control over them. Exercise that control. Train them to look her in the eyes. Discipline yourself to see her, not her clothes or her body. The moment you play the victim you fall into the lie that you are simply embodied reaction to external stimuli unable to determine right from wrong, human from flesh.
As my godson walked by, I called him over to read the article. The note is intended for someone my godson’s age, so I wanted to hear his opinion. He read for a few seconds and said, “I can solve this in two words: don’t stare.”
So simple, and so obvious. My godson’s parents taught his this rule when he was young, and they have rarely needed to remind him of it.
However Pyle complicates the situation by resorting to ironically shaming his son for his sexual interest in women, assuming his son is straight, and ignoring women’s agency. It is normal for people to look at those they find sexually attractive. It is also normal for people to dress in a way that will attractive people they find sexually attractive. Many women dress in a way to attract men’s attention. We need not pretend that does not happen to make the point that no one, male or female, should stare at another person.
Yet going back to Pyle’s son’s sexuality, it will prove quite interesting if Pyle’s son is gay. Will he give the boy the same talk or will he, like many feminists, assume that staring at men — with lust, contempt, or any emotion — is perfectly fine?
While Pyle’s note to his son presents a host of problems, the silliness of his argument shines best in the comments. Valter Viglietti states in a comment:
I hope you and your son happily agree about it, but you know what?
In the end, about women feeling uneasy because I look at them, I decided that I don’t care.I’m really fed up with this meme that I call “A man should NEVER make a woman suffer (including making her uncomfortable or uneasy)”. It’s unrealistic, unfair and sexist: because it puts all the pressure and burden on one gender alone.
When people like you have this talking, they are much worried about women’s feelings, but they seem to totally forget about men’s feelings. If I have to repress, discipline, and condition myself to avoid making any woman uneasy, then I WILL BE the one feeling uneasy.
That’s not equality, isn’t it?
To which Joanna Schroeder responds with:
YOU don’t have to make women feel uncomfortable. That’s in your control. I have no control over how men treat me, look at me, follow me, or touch me. It’s on YOU not to do that to me.
I mean, in your world, I could say, “I’m so tired of not hitting cars when I park. I mean, you need to think about how I feel when I’m parking. I have to be so careful! I have to sometimes back up and adjust so that I don’t hit any cars. It’s such an inconvenience. I don’t care how it affects the other cars. I’m tired of MY right to hit your car being disregarded when I’m driving. I should be able to do whatever I want to make my life easier. I don’t care anymore about what I do to other cars.”
I’m sickened by this. Ill.
“Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy (/ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/)) is a personality trait or disorder characterised partly by enduring anti-social behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[1]”
Schroeder ignores that psychopathy/sociopathy requires a lack of empathy towards everyone, not just particular group of people, and not just in a specific situation. While I would agree that Viglietti’s comment is unsavory, that does not make him a sociopath.
He also has a point. The feminist argument is that men should treat women’s feelings as paramount over everything else. Men must anticipate how a woman feels, and react to that feeling in the way that best serves her.
This is of course ridiculous. No one can anticipate how someone will react to a glance, a look, or a stare. Yet Schroeder, when confronted with the absurdity of her position, presents analogy after hyperbolic analogy that are in no way comparable to men looking at women. When she gets fed up with her analogies getting picked apart, Schroeder states:
Nobody, not once, said there’s a problem with eyes catching on another person and looking for a moment. This whole thing is about looking at a woman in a way that takes away her humanity.
No one stated anything about catching another person’s eye at all. Pyle specifically states:
You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing – or not wearing. But don’t. Don’t play the victim.
Pyle also states:
We fear each other because we have been taught the other is dangerous. We’ve been a taught a woman’s body will cause men to sin. We’re told that if a woman shows too much of her body men will do stupid things. Let’s be clear: a woman’s body is not dangerous to you. Her body will not cause you harm. It will not make you do stupid things. If you do stupid things it is because you chose to do stupid things. So don’t contribute to the fear that exists between men and women.
Yet Pyle’s argument, along with the feminists leaving comments, is that a man’s body is dangerous to women. It is so dangerous that even his eyes are dangerous. His eyes are so dangerous that even a boy’s eyes are a threat to grown women. And any man or boy who does not control his eyes will contribute to this fear between men and women.
But telling people that a male simply looking at a female makes him a threat to her in way contributes to that fear.
Pyle also ignores an important aspect to someone staring: their thoughts. Pyle appears to assume that any male who stares at a woman only sees her body. That man or boy apparently never wants to know what the woman or girl thinks, what food she likes, what movies she likes, what she sounds like when she laughs, if likes the same music he does, if she always goes to that store she walked out of or if this is a one-off visit.
No, when males star at females, they only think sex, sex, and more sex.
Schroeder eventually bows out, which prompts Mark Greene to write:
I think the issue here is that these few men just don’t get it. And its pretty obvious they don’t get it because they pile on and raise a stink about their “rights” in the absolute absence of any women’s voices supporting them. They look around and the only woman in the conversation has left the room. Nice work, guys. Nice work.
The author is talking about a set of soft skills here. A frame for viewing the full context of what it is to be a women, which includes the threat of being intruded on, harassed and abused. These are soft skills mind you, not rules so much as a PHILOSOPHY for approaching the entire world of women, some who have been abused by men. In the old days, it was called being a gentlemen. Something which these guys don’t get. Will never get. And will suffer bad relationships with women all their lives because they don’t get.
Of course women owe men these same considerations. So don’t start up with that.
The funny thing about being a gentlemen is that a gentlemen applies his philosophy of respect and kindness to everyone, not just women.
The funny thing about Pyle’s note to his son is that he never suggests that his son apply these rules to everyone, only to women.
Again, all of this can be summed up in two simple words: don’t stare.
No one needs the complaints about not being able to look where you want, the hyperbolic analogies, or another “man up!” pep talk.
Do not stare at people. Any people. Simple and to the point.
Now Pyle, Schroeder, and Greene can get back to the Good Men Project’s important feminist task of ironically dehumanizing all males by publishing articles that imply that unless taught otherwise all males, even little boys, will inherently objectify women.
Toy Soldiers 
Completely agree with you here, Soldier. I’ve never been harmed by anyone’s eyes, nor by accidentally being bumped in public or having someone complement my body. I may not like it since it reminds me of my physical sex…but I know that in 99 out of 100 cases these actions aren’t meant in a “creepy” way. The idea that absolutely everyone in my immediate environment *must* change their behavior to ensure that I can’t be made uncomfortable in any way is both ludicrous and insulting.
No one would care about my feelings if I owned a penis instead of a clitoris, and I loathe double standards. Not only that, but I think that by perpetuating the idea that everything revolves around women’s perceptions just leads us even further into a culture of female entitlement and disregard for men.
Lost in Pyle’s talk to his son is that some women want you to stare. In fact, they got up that morning putting on certain clothes with intent(agency) to make sure that you stare. Well, maybe not all of us but definitely a select few. The funny thing is, if, for whatever reason those specific men don’t stare Im pretty sure they are going to be very disappointed, lmao. Spot on post.
Do you remember a minor feminist internet controversy from about seven or eight years ago? On some feminist blog, a poster named “Biting Beaver” was bemoaning and denouncing her own son because he was viewing pornography and masturbating. She lamented how he was contributing to rape culture, that he was a nascent rapist, and that she wished she had aborted him. She also explained that she would yell at him and force him to read Andrea Dworkin passages at length. Her fellow feminist bloggers commiserated with her and offered their support. Of course, the controversy was about all the opprobrium and scorn “Biting Beaver” received when the internet at large became aware of her rants. The feminists were incensed that anybody would dare criticize a feminist “mother” who despised and terrorized her own son.
In my view, Pyle’s essay is within the same category and spectrum as “Biting Beaver’s” rants. But instead of fulminating rage and hatred, he has clothed his lecture with sentimentality and faux-compassion. However, his sermon still conveys the same message: “You are dangerous. Your desires are dangerous. And you must control yourself and your desires as I instruct or you will commit evil against women.” This style of essay is a category unto itself at The Good Men Project site. They usually take the form of apostrophic letters that these “concerned” parents would write to their male children in the event that they catch their boys looking at pornography or staring at female persons. And they always take an unctuous and “concern troll” tone about the male child’s apparent sexual development.
Pyle is one of those new age, reformed style pastors who try to incorporate trendy and progressive rhetoric into their preaching. If he were a traditional “fire and brimstone” preacher, he would be warning his son about the temptations and sins of the flesh and how lust leads one into hell. Instead, he is warning his son about his desires and maleness are some inherent danger to women that will lead him into committing the grave sin of objectification and violate the sanctity of women.
No surprise that The Good Men Project screws it all up again with an article like this that, as always, puts the onus on men and ONLY men to shape up.
Like so much in feminism, it’s a demand for deference. They hardly even try to disguise it as a campaign for equality anymore. Her body is holy, her feelings are sacrosanct, you are unclean. When a woman passes, avert your gaze lest you defile her with your dirty, dirty eyes. Know your place, scum. As the AVFM poster says, “had enough of this shit yet?” I certainly have.
I’m bloody annoyed at how Joanna Schroeder big notes herself about what she does for male victims. Charlatan.
My ability to comment there seems to fluctuate for…some reason – anyway, yes, I saw this today, and I’m glad you’ve picked up on it.
Schroeder et al don’t seem to realise that when you tag behavioural rules of this kind to someone’s feelings of COMFORT, you are explicitly tagging it to something that is highly subjective and sometimes unreasonable or irrational. No, not all women will respond negatively to a mere glance – but there are those that will. And I think at that point it is perfectly acceptable to say, “Actually, your feelings and fears on this matter are entirely disproportionate”. In effect, there will be some situations where people will effectively be saying “Sorry, but your feelings here will be disregarded”. This also allows people to raise the notion of men’s subjective feelings in response to these rules to be raised as a consistent counterargument. But of course, they won’t accept that form of discomfort as being valid. The point about this being a double standard is right on the money.
Given that feminism has spent so much time investing itself in the “lived experience” of others and other subjective constructs however, it does not surprise me that this is shied away from. Questioning one subjective experience would naturally lead to others being questioned.
Your godson sounds like a smart chap. 🙂
“This whole thing is about looking at a woman in a way that takes away her humanity.”
How stupid. Admiring a Preston’s appearance doesn’t take away their humanity. Give me a break.
Admiring a person’s appearance. Freaking auto-correct.
He is desxualizing his son, who will never get laid and grow up to be very angry when he sees the results of what his father taught him. And that women respond nothing like what his fathers feminist bullshit says.
Here is how eye contact with women actually work:
http://yousowould.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/death-by-a-million-leers/
http://yousowould.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/eye-contact/
http://www.pickupguide.com/layguide/eyecontact.htm
Greg: “I’m bloody annoyed at how Joanna Schroeder big notes herself about what she does for male victims. Charlatan.”
It’s all window dressing, Greg. Another trump card to pull out: “Oh, I may stick to my biased feminist lens like glue but I still care about male victims. So there! By the way, what have YOU ever done for male victims?”
(She actually had the cajones to ask the final sentence in a thread one time.)
I think staring at someone out of lust can be harmful to the person being stared at if they know that is why you are looking at them as a piece of meat. However, humans stare. We all do it, and it is not always out of a desire to control someone’s body.
Yet focusing on a specific type of motive misses the point. We all know that it feels very uncomfortable to be stared at no matter how innocent. Think about the last time a baby stared at you. The baby cannot hurt you in any way, yet it can still feel unnerving. Staring is seen as an aggressive act by most animals because most animals that stare at you want to eat you. This is why you do not stare at other people. It is very easy for the person to take your stare the wrong way.
That is the message Pyle should teach his son.
You are referring to this. It was a truly disgusting thing for her to write, and quite revealing. It not only showed how toxic feminism can be, but also how quickly feminists will rally around a clearly abusive woman. Indeed, one very popular Jill Filipovic graced that article to defend Biting Beaver. I spent the last forty minutes looking for feminists criticizing Beaver’s comments, and I have not found any. I have only found feminists defending her or claiming she did not make the comments at all.
I agree. However, I think Pyle’s method is much more insidious because it is so nuanced. Pyle’s son might never catch just how harmful it is until he ends up having problems later on.
I find that curious because one would assume one article about the topic would be enough. Yet the Good Men Project publishes several of these types of articles every month, usually in succession. Of course, they never publish the opposite perspective. All the articles come from feminists. None come from conservative or moderate voices.
I am not sure why that happens. I will look into it.
That is precisely the problem. Schroeder does not explain how not to make women uncomfortable. Every person differs, so how can one anticipate what will make someone uncomfortable?
I do find it surprising because if feminism is so invested in “lived experience” why would men’s lived experiences not count? Why would non-feminist women’s experiences not count?
I do not think his son will never have sex, although I do think Pyle sets his son up to be unprepared for the myriad reactions women will have. As for your links, I think those tips work with some men in certain situations. A less attractive man will likely be thought of as creepy if he met a woman’s eye and smiled.
TS:
Staring at someone is ill-mannered and rude, this is true. But even the most lustful look does not regard the person lusted after as “a piece of meat”. It is one of the most insidious pieces of feminist propaganda that male sexual desire is inherently dehumanising to the person desired. Men don’t fancy objects, we don’t fancy pieces of meat, we fancy other human beings and hope they fancy us too and that that will lead to intimacy between us. If the person desired does not reciprocate that desire that’s fair enough, they’re under no obligation to, but that doesn’t invalidate the desire or make it somehow evil. It is a genuine feeling towards another person.
All Schroeder’s talk of women’s comfort it an attempt to make men 100% responsible for a woman’s subjective emotions. Our emotions are our own, and we alone are responsible for them, how we act on them, and whether or not we keep them in proportion. That applies to a woman’s feelings of discomfort as much as it applies to a man’s feelings of sexual desire. We should of course do our best not to abuse anybody else’s feelings or take them for granted, but at the same time they are not reliable and can be unreasonable, and we have no obligation to appease someone else’s unreasonable feelings.
I think it’s pretty clear that that trope has only ever been applicable one way, and in cases like this you can see why not – you have two sets of subjective feelings butting up against each other – those of the person being looked at, and those of the person doing the looking. When you gender the topic like this, it seems to me that the only course of action in order to attempt to get what you want – such as the apparent “right” of women not to feel subjective discomfort in this case – is to deny one side’s feelings, and deny how in doing so they refute their own standard of making people feel discomfort.
A lot of feminist rhetoric seems to utilise a bit of “four legs good two legs better” when it comes to the validity of subjective experiences. In reality, how can one distinguish between two reactions? Who gets to say whose discomfort is “worse”? One can certainly try to and I think you can definitely make a decent attempt at defining what is and isn’t acceptable – but if you open that debate up, won’t that enable other discussions about the validity of other subjective experiences, like those of rape victims? (This is related, IMO, to the debate going on right now in Ally Fogg’s latest blog entry, and the double standard appears there too. No-one dare dissect or criticise the experiences of female victims of male rape. Male victims of female rape? Go nuts.)
As I see it, the bigger problem with anchoring behaviour to rules like to “don’t make people uncomfortable” – it’s a bit like saying “don’t be offensive”. By anchoring a rule of behaviour to subjective reactions, you limit behaviour to that permitted by the easiest offended, the easiest discomforted. Somehow I don’t think anyone in that thread actually wants this to happen, but I don’t think they can acknowledge the double standard in this particular view of theirs for fear of toppling other viewpoints of theirs as a result.
Revealing how Schroeder leaps from a male LOOKING at a woman to an analogy involving physically destroying other people’s property and recklessly endangering their safety.
This sort of crap about men’s supposed obligation to ensure women’s comfort is why I consider most feminists my enemy as an autistic, as well as as a man. I’m inherently creepy-odd gait and posture, weird nervous tics, awkward speech, face and voice that only display emotion when I consciously make them do so, and (most directly applicable here) weird gaze. My eyes actively avoid people’s faces- if the only to treat a woman like a human being is to “look her in the eyes,” I guess they’re all meat to me, as are the men. If I’m deep in thought I can appear to be staring in whatever direction my head happened to be pointed at.
Like I said, creepy. I have no doubt that some women find my presence uncomfortable and distasteful. I also have absolutely no doubt that a great many feminist women would, if they ever ran into me, eagerly invent a catalog of moral failings to assign to me to justify their revulsion. There’s basically no feminist-friendly way a man like me can even leave the house, short of donning a niqab and big mirrored shades.
I’d be curious to see if Good Men Project would run a similar article about gay boys and men, lecturing them about how important it is not to cause discomfort to males, since the average straight guy is probably a lot more uncomfortable at the prospect of being ogled by a man than the average woman.
Mark Greene is truly appalling, a fine example of the feminist man as just another kind of swaggering macho bully. Thank God the “full context” of being male is free from “the threat of being intruded on, harassed and abused,” eh?
I agree with your statements in a general sense, and would like to clarify that while I’ve never been harmed by someone’s gaze in *public*. What has happened to me while growing up was very different, however that is because at the time I knew that I was being viewed in a dehumanizing way.
Being one of only 3 women in a job that has a 98% nerdy/geeky male demographic, I’m not really uncomfortable with being stared at anymore. Besides, if they’re staring, they’re not touching, which is far more important to my mental health.
Sad, yes. But true.
Don’t play the victim.
Ah, the battle cry of losers and victims everywhere.
I think the issue here is that these few men just don’t get it. And its pretty obvious they don’t get it because they pile on and raise a stink about their “rights” in the absolute absence of any women’s voices supporting them.
——————————
Very revealing remark.
An idea is only valid if females agree with it.
Right is only right if divine female agrees.
You should only push those men’s issues that the divine female deems acceptable.
Or else you won’t get any.
Nope! I don’t think so.
———————–
A lot of people will try and tell you that a woman should watch how she dresses so she doesn’t tempt you to look at her wrongly.
————————————–
And they are right!
You have somehow managed to internalize the idea that it’s perfectly fair and reasonable for females to go about half naked while the onus is entirely upon you not to even look let alone act.
This isn’t peeping tomery folks! (female with expectation of privacy)
This is females thinking they can go about in public and mind fuck with impunity.
By all means females should be free to cruelly taunt young boys! (this IS how females sexually abuse boys/men)
Nope! I don’t think so.
If a female isn’t prepared to be stared at she SHOULD be more thoughtful in how she dresses.
Look all you want young boy.
Stare and keep staring until the female gets uncomfortable enough to learn some responsibility.
Change the frame folks!
How exactly is reinforcing the idea of not playing the victim a “battlecry” of “losers” and victims?
I agree, and I find it worth noting that she never catches herself doing it. It seems as if she takes it as a fair comparison, which speaks to how dangerous such nuanced theories about masculinity can be. Schroeder appears to accept without question that there is something inherently negative and ill-intended in male behavior, regardless of men’s actual intentions.
I recall Hugo Schwyzer writing about this issue before, and his antipathy towards men who experience legitimate difficulties navigating our social landscape. I believe his responses were to my former co-blogger Daran, although I may be mistake. Most of the feminist commentary I read about autistic men or socially awkward men is at best indifferent to those men’s issues.
No, they would not, although they have run at least one article claiming that all gay men delight in touching women’s bodies without women’s permission. I cannot think of one article the Good Men Project ran concerning male discomfort in social situations at all.
I do not think dressing in a provocative way is taunting young boys or sexual abuse. I do, however, think that most women know that dressing that way will garner attention and it is silly for anyone to pretend otherwise.
While I do not agree with anyone staring at people, I do agree that women should be aware that they way they dress affects how people look at them. Dressing in certain attire, or lack there of, will garner more attention. If one does not want that attention, one should consider dressing differently. And this is not to say that women cannot dress in whatever makes them comfortable. It is only to say that clothing (and the lack of it) sends a message, and we ought not pretend that is not the case.
That is precisely the wrong thing to do. There is nothing wrong with women wearing what they want, just as there is nothing wrong with people looking at them. There is, however, something wrong with staring at a person to make them feel uncomfortable, and there is something wrong with expecting strangers to know or anticipate your comfort level.
@John
You bring up an interesting point about how men vs women (in general) handle being around those would are either socially awkward or have legitimate medical issues that make it difficult to react “properly” in public. I used to volunteer in the Resource Room in high school (a peer tutoring option for those who responded better to people their own age rather than adults). Many of the people I tutored either had a form of autism or a learning disability coupled with a physical disability (only 1 eye, born without arms, severe nervous tics, etc).
Just as I have customers like this now, I’ve found that men (in general) have a much easier time helping or making friends with people like those I taught than women (in general) do. Despite the fact that our “students” in Resource were really awesome, regular peers for the most part…the year always ended with the female volunteers dropping to about 1/6 of what it was in the beginning. As far as I could tell, the same never happened with the male volunteers, though there were always less of them anyway.
I never quite found out the real reasons for why the “other” women dropped out. Anytime I asked, it was a response of “Oh, it just wasn’t a good match for me” or “Well, I want to help people study, but in a more comfortable setting”. It was never said, but I’m convinced that the things you mention in yourself were the true reasons as to why they didn’t stay.
Maybe it has to do with females putting more stock into body language than they should at times? I don’t know, but I am sorry for the way society and women in general are, and hope it doesn’t cause you any problems on a consistent basis.
@Soldier
What is this about gay men and touching women? It sounds very odd, to say the least…
So looking at women and reducing them down to sexual objects is bad because it makes women uncomfortable. (Even if sexual objectification isn’t really a “thing” at all for people who haven’t suffered a specific kind of neurological damage.)
But looking at men and reducing them down to rapists is a-okay, despite the fact that men have said, multiple times, that this makes them uncomfortable.
Alright-y then!
“I think the issue here is that these few men just don’t get it. And its pretty obvious they don’t get it because they pile on and raise a stink about their “rights” in the absolute absence of any women’s voices supporting them.”
I think that’s because GMP deleted dissenting women’s voices, Mark. Because I certainly do support us actually giving a shit about men’s subjective comfort.
It’s amazing the casual bigotry that drips… men’s opinions can’t have legitimacy all on their own, women must _agree_ with them.
Do these people ever stop and wonder what kind of world they’re actually living in?
@typhonblue
“Do these people ever stop and wonder what kind of world they’re actually living in?”
Sad thing is, they probably don’t. The majority love being sheeple, and tend to dislike opinions/facts that upset the conclusions they’ve already reached.
Pingback: Stop Looking at Me! :: The Damned Olde Man
Toysoldier said:
I do not think dressing in a provocative way is taunting young boys or sexual abuse. I do, however, think that most women know that dressing that way will garner attention and it is silly for anyone to pretend otherwise.
I work in a busy retail precinct which has two large senior secondary schools on it’s fringe. Much of the passing foot traffic is 16-18 year old students. Whilst the boys mostly dress relatively plainly the girls attire has been getting briefer every year. Inches of bare backside, acres of breast tissue, transparent tights, are a minute by minute event. Adult female shoppers frequently dress the same.
If I were working in an environment with women dressing in these ways I would be very likely to make formal complaints. It isn’t necessary. I perceive it to be a sexual aggression and believe it’s high time this began to be acknowledged. Being passive does not mean it isn’t an aggression. Unfortunately our culture is rather disinclined to view any female behaviour as aggressive. This needs to change.
There are hundreds of folk working in those schools I mentioned. Most workplaces have some standards regarding what is acceptable attire. Why shouldn’t schools and the students therein be held to similar standards?
tarnishedsophia:
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/gay-mens-sexism-and-womens-bodies/
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/gay-male-sexism-and-how-it-happens/
@Tamen
Thanks for the links. I’m at work for the next 9 hours, but I’ll read them during my lunch break. I’m sure they’ll be…interesting.
re my post from September 9, 2013 at 6:02 am…
I posted that comment without the leading quote to the GMP thread. It took them about five minutes to remove it.
As I suspected they moderate me based on my name rather than my words.
Remember that “looking is a crime” in femtopia, and that men are 100% responsible for making women feel safe and comfortable at all times. Men are supposed to modify their behavior in whatever way women like, unless they’re some kind of sociopathic misogynists.
Then they wonder why nobody takes their arguments seriously….
Also, TGMP’s censorship is a standard joke among those who discuss men’s issues. They do indeed flag specific names for auto-moderation, and instant-delete any naughty trigger words like “feminism” or “feminist.” Only the authors and editors are allowed to use those terms, in the approved fashion.
The odd thing is that in certain circles, if a guy says he looked at a woman, and thought she was attractive, and wondered if she shared the same interests as him, he’s promptly accused of being a creepy friendzoner/nice guy. I was accused of being one once on reddit just for saying I’d talk to a woman wearing a Supergirl t-shirt. I was literally accused of lying or wrong about my own intent. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
And yet, when in these same circles women want to ogle men…
No, the problem is that you’re not selling it. You’re the one lacking empathy for men, and assume you know what they think, even if they tell you otherwise. It’s tempting to blame your inability to persuade people on your target. But you’re not trying to sell it to them, you’re preaching from a bully pulpit. Emphasis bully; when you can’t get your way, you try and shame them.
Greg, Schroeder told me when I complained about all my comments going into moderation that there are at least 100 people on “perma-mod.” Those people’s comments must be approved before they post. If your comment posted before it was removed (that is that there was not a “waiting in moderation” warning above it), then someone had to pull your comment.
I don’t get it… what is wrong with a dad telling their son not to look at women for just their physical appearance but to look at them as an equal capable of thought, emotion and feeling? I didn’t really read any of this negativity I’ve been reading in the comments, did I read the wrong article?
For one, it assumes that the boy would not do that to begin with. There is no reason to assume that is the case. For all he knows, his son may go well beyond that and put the woman on a pedestal. There is also no reason to assume that every time someone looks at a person they must make some connection with the person. There is nothing wrong with fantasizing about another person. Far too often, it appears that feminists see ill intent in men and boys where there is none, and jump to conclusions about that without bothering to actually talk to the men or boys to find out what they are actually thinking.
I think that whether or not he assumes it or not is not the point though. This is a conversation between a parent and child, parents care for their kids we can all agree on this? (Atleast some or the idea of a parent should) Its like why do parents give their kids the sex talk if their kid is a straight A student who never misbehaves? I think it would be out of care that even if they think they know how to grow up and act that they will reach out and make sure so that it doesn’t blow up in their face. I’m not just talking about a father and son, mother and daughter but vice versa as well. I get that people will defend their beliefs, but to lash out at a harmless conversation between a father and son? It’s not like he’s teaching his kid to be an active racist or anything.
If it were a private conversation between a father and son, then the author should not have shared it publicly. By sharing it, he invites commentary.
I do not think the conversation was harmless. It is built around this idea that the son will objectify women unless taught not to. That is problematic.
Maybe.
The fact that the father thinks that his address to his son is “out of care” does not mean that it really is effective “caring” or that it is not harmful. Lots of parents think they are helping and acting “out of care” when they tell their children that homosexuality is an evil disease which needs to be cured. But they probably are not actually “helping” despite their sincere intentions.
First off, it was not really a “conversation” because it has not happened yet. The author says that this is the monologue he plans to deliver to his son when he presumably starts paying sexual attention to female persons (the author assumes the son will be heterosexual). Secondly, there was no indication or expectation of the son ever responding to his father’s admonitions, so it is really a planned lecture, not a “conversation.” We do not agree that the “conversation” is “harmless.” Your defense of it by saying “it’s not like he’s teaching his kid to be an active racist” is strange. Calling one’s daughter something like “whore” or “slut” is not teaching her to “be an active racist” either, but it is still harmful. There are plenty of other harmful and bad things you can impart upon a child besides teaching them active prejudice.
This is about a parent preemptively instilling a sense of guilt and shame in his son because of his son’s possible sexual interests, insinuating that he is a dangerous and threatening entity to female persons. If the author were a traditional Christian preacher, he might warn his son, “Do not have sexual fantasies or masturbate, because that is a sin and you’ll go to Hell!” And that would be a harmful and shaming message to a pubescent child. But instead, the author will command his son not to “objectify” women by having physical, sexual fantasies about them. If his son observes a person he finds sexually attractive and masturbates to the thought of that person, then presumably his son has to redeem or purify his sexual fantasies by always imagining full psychological and emotional conjugal intimacy with the person he is fantasizing about. Because if he just fantasizes about sexual and physical things, he is “reducing” female persons to their bodies and “objectifying” them. And honestly, how is any person supposed to comply with that requirement? If his son passes some female person at the mall or the beach, he has no way of getting to know that person’s emotions, thoughts, or human subjectivity. He just passed her momentarily in public. Is his son only supposed to sexually fantasize about people he knows well enough, so that he has a full picture of their humanity in his mind when he masturbates?
If a father told his daughter that she should only have sex when she is “in love” and that it is bad if she has sex with somebody without being emotionally attached to the person, the feminists would condemn that as “slut shaming.” This father’s directive to his son is even more far reaching and pernicious, because he is trying to police his son’s sexual thoughts and telling him that certain sexual thoughts are evil and immoral unless they are redeemed by concepts of human companionship and intimacy.
So am I to believe that all parents should ignore their child and not share with them the knowledge they have about how to act socially? I understand the idea of assumptions, but is it really assuming that he thinks his son will grow up like that? Think of it this way, why do parents pick out the clothes for their children? I would personally think because they think that without their guidance that their kids will dress inappropriately or not dress well. Why do parents pick certain foods for their kids? Maybe it has to do with price or maybe they don’t think without their guidance they will eat unhealthy or too much unhealthy foods.
We have to remember that we don’t live in a vacuum, and if a parent does not take charge of their child some one else will; be it a friend, a stranger or a fictional character. Remember that we are talking about a child. If we don’t assume all possibilities and prepare for them, we are no better than a stranger on the street, because that is what we will be to them. This whole thing is based on the fact that he should not of given this conversation to his son because it assumes he thinks his son will objectify women, but how is this a problem? Like I said already we do many things for our children because we assume they might, keyword might become or do something. To ignore it is wrong. I don’t see a better alternative action to relay this information to my kid if I ever had one than to give him a nice speech from parent to child.
No, yet that begs the question of why this father feels the need to lecture his son about looking at women. One would assume that as a good parent this man would share his knowledge of how to act socially, and one would assume this would include teaching his son about how to treat women. If so, why would the father need to have a separate conversation about the topic? Would he not have already taught his son about respecting other people?
Again, if he has already taught his son about proper social behavior, why would he need to have this specific conversation? The only reason to do so is if the father failed to teach his son about proper social behavior, the boy tends to ignore his father’s teachings, or the father assumes that the boy will objectify women regardless of what he teaches him because that is the boy’s nature or because society has that much impact on his son. The first three lie with the father, and the latter makes it pointless to teach the boy anything.
True, however, most parents do not wait until their child is in junior high to teach them how to dress appropriately. Most parents teach their children that lesson with the children are very young so that by the time the child goes to school and begins to socialize this will not be a problem.
Then why wait until the boy hits puberty? Why not teach him this lesson now so that he understands what he is supposed to do when the time comes?
As Durasim explained, it is a problem “[b]ecause if he just fantasizes about sexual and physical things, he is “reducing” female persons to their bodies and “objectifying” them. And honestly, how is any person supposed to comply with that requirement? If his son passes some female person at the mall or the beach, he has no way of getting to know that person’s emotions, thoughts, or human subjectivity. He just passed her momentarily in public. Is his son only supposed to sexually fantasize about people he knows well enough, so that he has a full picture of their humanity in his mind when he masturbates?”
No, but that does not mean it is a okay for a parent to inculcate or instill any or every kind of ideology in his/her offspring. If a parent decides that he is going to teach his children to always be afraid and suspicious of black people, that would be bad. And you yourself suggested it would be bad if a father taught his son to be racist. But some racists just think they are telling the “truth” about racial matters to their children.
That does not mean parents have carte blanche and that every “guidance” directive they give is good and benign. You give the example of parents choosing their children’s clothes. What if a male child wanted to wear feminine clothing, and the parent refuses and tells the male child that him wearing feminine clothes is bad and disgusting and he will be punished for doing so? Is that okay?
We know this, and this does not prove your point nor does it vindicate the bad and questionable message instilled by the author of that article. Your point seems to be that any kind of parental guidance is better than no parental guidance and so what this father teaches his son is okay or we should not question it. Well, that is not incorrect. Sometimes it may actually be better if the parent does not take charge or influence the child. If a father plans to teach his son that women are deceitful and conniving and should not be trusted and you must always assume the worst about them, it is probably better that that particular father not impart his views on his children. In that case, ignoring would be better than teaching.
Because it creates a pejorative and predatory assumption about his son’s sexual capacity and impresses the notion upon his son that he may be dangerous and harmful to other (female) people. If a father gave a corollary lecture to his daughter about how she must never dress to provocatively and must “keep her legs together,” that probably creates some bad and pejorative assumptions about her own sexual capacity.
Um, how about giving him a “nice speech” that is not predicated upon pejorative and predatory assumptions about the son’s desires or a “nice speech” that does not give some open-ended command that you have to balance out and redeem your sexual thoughts with thoughts of connubial emotional reciprocity. It is possible to not ignore something and also not give a bad, shaming message to one’s impressionable child.
And just because a speech is delivered in a “nice” and sentimental tone does not mean that the content of the speech is actually “nice” itself. A parent might be tenderly hugging his son while softly telling him that his sexuality is a disease that needs to be cured and purged. Cruel words can be spoken “nicely” but that does not make them nice.
Am I to believe that you will teach your child everything there is to know about social behavior actions and social views when they are 8? Maybe 12? There is an appropriate time for everything. Was there even an age stated? Was it assumed the child has hit puberty? Does the general idea of respect lash out so far that a simple instruction can teach you everything you need to know about it? Would you know how to respect every single person in the world by using the same methods you learned in one place? I don’t believe so. Now we bring up puberty, the most confusing (or at least it was explained to every child as such) part of growing up. Where mixed emotions and interest about the other sex arise. Surely you can not hold any child growing up during this period whether it be a boy or girl for the mistakes they make or are going to make? Surely we will have to lend them a helping hand and help steer them in the direction we feel is correct. If it turns out to be wrong or if they end up not following it than we can be disappointed in them and be sad about the lack of parenting.
However you blame people for having sexual desires of people on the street. Is that even fair that its only the fault of men, if we have these desires towards women? Does being a women somehow justify seeing a man sexually whereas being a man seeing a women sexually is under the subject of objectification? Like you said we can not know who the other person is thus turning them into an object in our eyes is normal. Can you say that everyone who looks at a person on the street instantly knows that person instead of taking from what they see in the scene and construct an object based on the experiences and feelings they currently know? I don’t think it is possible, we may strive to know every single person but sooner or later we will meet someone who just doesn’t have the time or desire to meet and talk with a total stranger. Point is, it is impossible not to objectify, we can just show respect by keeping the possibilities open and field open. If telling his son to keep an account of his own actions, not to blame others for what he does and to treat women as equals is wrong than I have no idea what the goal of equality is anymore.
Thanks for replying by the way, I really appreciate it 🙂
I agree. However, the father’s concerns can be addresses at any age. I taught my godson not to stare or point at people when he was three-years-old. His parents did the same thing. It took some time, but he eventually got it. The issue of sexual desire is better left for when a child is old enough to understand what you are talking about, however, what this father wants to teach his son goes well beyond “don’t stare at women because it’s impolite.” He wants to teach his son that looking at women’s bodies is bad, and that the boy must see every woman’s intricacies.
What if the boy is not interested in knowing the woman? What if he just finds her attractive and wants to look? Then what?
Yet that is what this father wants to do. He wants to hold his son responsible for a normal, natural human desire. You agree that it is impossible to know every person you encounter. You agree that it is impossible not to “objectify” the random people you find attractive. Would it not be equally impossible to try to know every facet of that random person, to see them for who they really are rather than what you see before you?
This is not an issue of respect. Fantasizing about someone is not disrespectful. It is a fantasy, and therefore is not bound to the social mores we hold. That does not mean that if one finds a person attractive one should stare them down. However, it does mean that if all you care about is how attractive that person looked to you, that is fine. You do not have to make a deeper connection with a random stranger you find pretty.
And I think the father agrees with that. That would explain his attempt to support his argument by resorting to claims about “objectification.” That argument assumes that when his son looks at another male, the boy will see the male as an individual and not as “the pretty boy” or the “jock” or “that rich dude.”
I’m so glad we agree, but I think he was trying to let his son understand the general basis of a person. Being that they were a child once, they have goals, they have dreams, they have a personality. I just think his ultimate goal was to make sure his kid just knows that ever person has these things, he doesn’t need to get to know someone to think “This person has dreams and thoughts”. However I don’t think not looking is the correct course of action, what is it about women that we can’t look at? Why would looking at a women shame us or them? Are they not equal to us? I should be able to look at a person who is fascinating to me and be able to see and understand that there is a bigger picture. I think this is what he is trying to get across. Lets forget that its a boy looking at women and just fill in the blanks with men women girl etc. It doesn’t really matter. If we are truly equal than there shouldn’t be a problem with us looking at each other, we should be able to see the bigger picture. That we are all people, and people aren’t a blank sheet a paper. Every stranger you see on the street has a name, you don’t need to know it, but you know they have one. Every stranger you meet probably has a goal, you don’t need to know it just remember that they do. By remembering that we are people beyond just our physical bodies we create an outline for the everyday person, we don’t need to know them but if we do we just know them better, but remembering will allow us to give even the fantasies we create a shred of humanity (or something, I don’t know how to word it) I just think this is his point.
I agree that it should not be considered “only the fault of men.” However, that is the posture that the feminists and feminist-sympathetic types take on this issue. The blame and onus for “objectification” is always on men, so they insist. And that essay was just another contribution to the principle that objectification is “only the fault of men.”
If the father in the article were only saying those things to his son, I would see nothing wrong in that. However, he did not simply encourage those principles to his son, he went further. He told his son that he should think about female persons in a certain, approved way and that if he thought about them just sexually or physically without some kind of redeeming attention to their intimate human subjectivity or whatever, then he would be guilty of “objectification.”
No, I do not think the father’s goals were that modest or anodyne. He said things like:
He is saying that it is bad for his son to look or pay attention solely because the person is somehow physically attractive or appealing, that he should only pay attention in respect to somebody’s full personhood, not for some attribute that he finds interesting or attractive. And then he says:
As stupid as the phrase “with your heart” is, it is a loaded phrase. He is telling his son that he should not look at female persons for the sake of titillation or gratification, but that he must presumably have some kind of emotional investment or devotion to any woman he dares to look at or fantasize about. I guess he wants his son not just to masturbate with his genitals, but also to masturbate with his heart.
If somebody wants to begin their fantasy and masturbation sessions with some kind of disclaimer saying “These people I fantasize about are human beings with dreams and emotions,” then he/she can go right ahead. Frankly, most people do not care about the human intricacy or subjectivity of the persons that populate their masturbatory inspiration. Nor should they be required to do so. And nor should they be told that they have to do so in order to be considered a decent human being, at whatever age.
Am I to take it that no one believes what he did is even remotely correct? (That’s the vibe I’m getting) Seeing as how there isn’t a real solution to the problem. I don’t think just not looking is a good enough solution, do we really want to live in an awkward world where no one feels comfortable enough to raise their heads to see the faces and bodies of the people around them in fear of being shamed? Is there no solution? It seems to me that there is only wrong answers when it comes to creating equality within our own race. How can we even fathom solving other problems if no light can be grasped from a good attempt.
To me he is telling his kid
– Do not let physical appearances be the only thing you see (Because we are not just empty husks)
– REMEMBER to treat women as equals (Because we are all equal)
– We as people are responsible for what we do, in this case women are responsible for what they wear and you are responsible for how you act. (Be responsible for yourself)
– Don’t fall into the views of society “There are two views regarding a woman’s dress code” “you are better than both of these.” (Pretty much don’t believe everything society is telling you)
Was I the only one looking for positive things when I read the article? Sure you can grasp at some strands and create negative meaning like you can do with almost anything. I also do not know where the subject of masturbating came from since it was not mentioned in the article. (Isn’t that a completely separate topic? This being the generation of fantasies, ideas and desires and masturbation being the use of them) Really though, the few negative points being repeated just seem like their being grasped at with assumptions.
I think he has good intentions but is going about it the wrong way. The easiest thing to do is to simply teach his son not to stare at people. He cannot stop his son from fantasizing about women’s bodies (assuming his son is heterosexual) and it is unrealistic to tell the boy to see every facet of a woman when he casually glances at her. Teaching the boy that looking at women’s bodies is wrong will only result in shaming his son’s sexuality and interests.
Not quite yet, but we are on that path, and articles like that one try to hasten us down that path.
No, but you are the only one who thinks the “positive” or benign things somehow cancel out the negative and pernicious things contained in the article, or that the “positive” things require us to not criticize any of the article and its premises.
Grasping was not necessary because the “negative meaning” was apparent from the very start of the article, which was couched as some kind of warning and admonition he would deliver to his son when his son demonstrated possible sexual interest in female persons. And if you care to read more of the articles at “The Good Men Project” site, you will see there are dozens of these articles about fathers warning their sons about the perils and wrongs of looking at female persons. And if you read any of the comments, you will see that the “negative meaning” is apparent to more than a few people.
Separate topic? For pubescent persons, looking, fantasizing, and masturbating are almost always intertwined and accompany each other. That is how most adolescents commence sexual development, by seeing or looking at something arousing and then masturbating, whether it is a pornographic website or someone they pass on the boardwalk (though hopefully for the latter example, they will retire to private area first).
And anyway, the father is teaching his son that looking and fantasizing can be wrong on its own (without masturbation) when he says things like “Don’t look to see something that tickles your senses, but see a human being,” teaching his son that he is obliged to counteract or balance out his physical fantasies about other people with mental disclaimers about other people’s “humanity” and subjectivity.
So back to treating women like ghosts? like they don’t exist? I do see the negatives pointed out and their points, but I really don’t see how that matters. There can be no perfect system, especially when it comes to a topic like this where most of the wrong doings occur in our heads. So teaching children under the assumption that they may grow up to objectify women is a problem. Saying looking at women for just their bodies is bad even though that is one of the things that is looked down upon when ever a sexualized character is displayed on screen on any medium be it cartoons, games or real life. We can’t treat every one as humans because we can’t get to know them thus we are to assume they are emotionless objects incapable of feeling emotion, reaction, dreams, and goals until we learn them to the deepest level. Even though we can just assume that if something is human it is capable of feelings, emotions, and thought, but it seems that we are to assume that people can’t remember even this about our own species.
Well this was what I got from this topic. I give up you guys win 😦 there is no solution, equality is doomed.
Most people who fantasize or masturbate to the thought of people they anonymously encounter do not assume that those persons are “emotionless objects.” They usually know such persons may have “emotion, reaction, dreams, and goals.” They just don’t particularly care about those things, because their primary goal is their own fantasy indulgence and physical gratification. And that is perfectly alright, because they are in no way harming those other people. The father in that article is exhorting his son to make the “emotion, reaction, dreams, and goals” of female persons into his foremost and primary consideration whenever he should view them or think about them. It is trying to establish some kind of mental colonization in his son’s mind, same as if he told his son not to fantasize or masturbate because God is always watching and judging him.