Men at work (II)

1. Men always desire sex

One of the biggest and most persistent notions in patriarchal society is that men supposedly think about sex every seven seconds. Not only is that idea preposterous, it's a damaging attitude that results in a couple of other widely-held beliefs.

“Men can't control their desires.”

This one is often brought up as the reason why women should not be wearing any revealing clothing, whether it's a short skirt in the West or something that isn't a wholesale tent in a particularly dire corner of the Middle East. Men, overcome with lust, would supposedly drop all civilization and let their dick do the thinking (and acting). Even if it were true, civilisation is all about rationality prevailing over base urges and instincts. A similar excuse is that men want to “spread their seed” in a drive to create as much offspring as possible. Since no one has ever observed a paleothic human being, this can’t even be proven, but the same reasoning applies. We’re taught from an early age to exercise restraint in almost every aspect of life, so it’s not like desire for sex should be this huge exception.

• Consequence for men: A convenient excuse for infidelity, sexual abuse and harassment
• Consequence for women: Getting the blamed for sexual assault

“All men are secretly rapists.”

Contrary to what antifeminists believe, it is patriarchy and not feminism that believes that all men are at least capable of rape (see above). Rapists themselves certainly believe it. It stems from the false idea that rape results from uncontrollable lust or miscommunication, while the real issue is violent domination. Unfortunately, we talk far too little about telling men not to rape and seek consent, but prefer telling potential victims to take cautionary measures.

• Consequence for men: Passive acceptance that rapists are part of the male population
• Consequence for women: Burden is shifted on them to avoid rape

“Men can't really be raped (unless by other men).”

One reason why men find it hard to speak about being sex abuse victims is because the traditional view of male sexuality holds that they're always "up for it" anyway, so they cannot possibly be raped in the traditional sense. Unless by another man. Then they are the bitch, i.e. they figuratively become women, which is telling of the status women occupy in traditional masculinity. Female-to-male rape is likely understudied, but unfortunately frequently only brought up by antifeminists to discredit awareness campaigns centring on sexual violence.

• Consequence for men: Huge barrier to speak about sexual assault experiences
• Consequence for women: Reinforcement of passive sex role, invisibility of female offenders

On to part III.

Men at work (I)

While it is seductive, it is ultimately pointless to get sucked into debates about how we should (re)define masculinity. I wrote about this before. I've also already briefly discussed male privilege as well as patriarchy’s essentialisation of men as primitive savages and how it damages us and our relationships with others.

This time, I want to head into a little more detail on how the things men are told in patriarchy hinder their development as human beings, with some far-reaching social repercussions. Some of these things may be contradictory, but then women are also no strange to getting trapped into contradictory expectations.

For non-regulars: patriarchy is a shorthand for the type of society that dominates most of the world. It is a society that mostly favours a particular class of people: straight, heterosexual fathers or potential fathers, and limits others. But of course, even this class does not escape patriarchy undamaged. Men are groomed for a position of domination, and this is really not without danger. Read on.

Part II.

Sex-positivism, -negativism and kinkshaming

A recurrent debate within feminist communities revolves around sex-positivism and sex-negativism. I'm aware that many people who support the latter don't like the term because it would imply that they hate sex or that their vision is just a rhetorical trick to make them sound like prudes. There are some similarities with the pornography debate, though arguably this topic is complex in other ways.

Sex as a revolutionary act

Most sex-positivists hold that anything that everyone has the right to seek out the sex they like, as long as all partners involved are (enthusiastically) consenting adults. This idea, especially as far as the liberation of women goes, is still super-revolutionary in a lot of ways, but has its share of opposition even within feminist communities, on top of opposition from traditional social structures in the form of slut-shaming, birth control limitation and sexual harrassment.

Sex-negativists, for lack of a better word, are concerned about patriarchal structures that adopt sexual liberation for their own benefit, e.g. mostly men who are all for a woman liking sex as long as it's the kind of sex they like, or the glorification of self-objectifying women to the detriment of women who enjoy other types of sex than being submissive/provocative.

Sex as a symbolic act

It's a valid concern, but one that can be addressed within sex-positivism as well. In fact, I hold that you can't be truly sex-positivist until you are comfortable with how diverse the sexual spectrum really is. In kink communities, this is summed up as 'Your kink is not my kink, and that's okay'. Also, let's not equate people who adopt superficial sex-positivist rhetoric with actual sex-positivists.

It gets trickier once you delve more deeply into the analysis of sex-negativism. For example, an argument I've seen as well - usually presented as a question - is that sex cannot be truly feminist if, in the majority of experiences, what it does is essentially replicating patriarchy in the bedroom. It views BDSM as a re-enactment of patriarchy (because most dominants are still men), and women who enjoy being the submissive partner or performing acts inspired by pornography as not contributing to feminism at best, and working against it at worst.

Language games

That argument may seem to have its merits, but it falls apart under closer scrutiny. For one, symbols mean different things in different contexts. Ludwig Wittgenstein spoke about 'language games', contexts that provide their own meaning and rules. The sign 'I' is letter in the English alphabet, but it is also the Roman numeral for 'one', depending on the context. 'No' is a perfectly clear indication of a boundary in flirtation, but in BDSM, its meaning may be 'yes', depending on what participants in a particular session or relationship have agreed.

Now, obviously symbols can carry double meanings and contexts definitely influence one another, otherwise we wouldn't have art or literature. But I hold that sufficiently self-conscious people can switch between contexts and realise that Symbol A does not stand for A in all of its contexts, or may even become anti-A. In this way, for instance, dirty talk does not promote slut-shaming, but subverts it.

The worst allies

Secondly, and more concerning, is that sexual preference is deeply tied with identity. Asking people to probe their sexual preferences - beyond the question of consent - is actually nothing more than old-fashioned kinkshaming. Do you ask gay people why they enjoy gay sex? Sexual preferences are usually formed rather early in life and before critical examination of gender roles in society gains much traction, and some of it may or may not be hardwired.

Sexual preferences can change, but they don't do so consciously. If sex-negativists wish to see a sexual landscape that carries over less symbols and acts inspired by patriarchy, the answer is certainly not to sanction only sex acts that are somehow sufficiently rife enough with egalitarian symbolism (also, how the hell do you even determine that). While sex-positivists should be on guard for patriarchal re-appropriation of liberation, sex-negativists have allies in circles that are arguably much worse: religious fundamentalists, some of whom think that sex acts that don't concern procreation should be punishable by death.

Full equals

Many people want to respect their partner as full equals, but discover they have kinky interests that seem to be at odds with this ideology. That's why sex-positivism can be such a boon to them, and helps them find healthy ways of getting the sex they like in a larger framework of meaningful consent and openness. With sex-negativism, I see none of this. It's a misguided approach to sexual preferences at best, and just another way of attempting to control people's sexuality at worst.

Rhetorics of progress (III): Arrogance and condescension

Arrogance, and to a larger extent condescension, make people not want to listen to what you have to say. It might be tempting to tell someone off who clearly has no clue what they are going on about, but if you're honestly interested in changing that person's mind, being smug about it isn't going to help you. This a problem that most often occurs between people of different social classes.

Anti-intellectualism

It's easy to forget, for a sizable portion of an audience that has pursued higher education, that some people are not as educated and will react with hostility to words and concepts that they cannot understand. To these people, that might as well be abracadabra designed to pull wool over their eyes (and it some cases, it is!).

It's also true that some people are anti-intellectual in general, but that doesn't usually mean that they hate on smart individuals - they hate the strawman of the sanctimonious intellectual - per se.

Les extrèmes se touchent

In an effort to be heard and understood, some highly educated people bend over backwards to break down stuff in a simpler way, or adopt the style of the social class background of the person they're debating with. That is an even more terrible choice because it is inauthentic.

What's worse, except to really gullible people, it comes off as paternalistic and condescending: "watch me stoop to your petty level". It's one of the ultimate own-goals that an intellectual can make. By desperately not wanting to seem like an intellectual, they seem like a phony instead.

Can we do no good, then?

But what to do then? Is it not possible at all to strike the right balance if you're in a debate with someone not as educated / up to speed / at another level? Of course it is possible to do it right! Here are a few things that I consider to be good debate hygiene:

1. Check what you say or write for unnecessary jargon. Nobody likes that, even if they are the right terms.
2. It isn't arrogant to call someone out on a factual error, but only if it actually matters to the core debate.
3. It's relevant to call someone out on arrogance or condescension, but don't make the same mistake while doing so.
4. Use the voice you would normally use when debating with acquaintances.
5. If you believe you're the more intelligent / mature person, act like it, don't point it out to them.

Rhetorics of progress (II): Logic alone won't get us anywhere

Having a good grasp on logic and epistemology is a huge advantage in any debate. It can be very frustrating if people use logical fallacies or non-sequiturs, although they can be seductive fallbacks. I won't list them here: this Wikipedia article does a very good job at explaining them.

But, while logic is incredibly useful in any context, it's not the only ally in a debate, not in the least when talking about the politics of progress. We all know that one person who keeps hammering data (or the lack thereof) and who conveniently ignores lived experiences. It's true that 'lived experience' doesn't count as a valid argument, but it is not completely invalid either. In identity politics, certainly, it matters a great deal.

That brings me to empathy. Adopting someone else's perspective may never be completely possible, and there's always a danger of shunting what is your understanding of another person's perspective into what you label as empathy, but all we can do is our best.

Demagogues on the right love portraying the left as faint-hearted in an essentially cruel and cold world, but what they call faint-hearted is actually an insistence on not dismissing anything but one square perspective.

For example, hounding a transgendered person for cold logic and facts when they want to talk about transphobia is not just counter-productive, but is as much part of the problem they want to discuss.

Consider this: someone is saying they're feeling sort of depressed. Do you take out the DSM manual and start going over all the checkboxes to ascertain they are actually depressed or were just using everyday exaggeration?

That brings me to a final point. Logic and the scientific method are a cornerstone of progress on many fronts and can serve you in all sorts of circumstances. Scepticism is extremely important, but in circumstances where people are not explicitly arguing for one of the other, it can be a real conversation killer. Especially if the discussion is not in a field you happen to be an expert in - then suspicion will quickly rise that you're arguing in bad faith, and if the discussion isn't dead already, that suspicion will surely kill it.

Rhetorics of progress (I): Some offences are bigger than others

'Offensive' is a weird word. Many people find many different things offensive. Some pride themselves on being offensive. For some, taking offence is almost a sport, and for others, being cynical and remaining unoffended is a source of smug self-satisfaction. It is also an annoying container term that I wish could be ditched.

 

Vacant claims

The reason why I want to distance myself from "being offended", is precisely because anyone can claim it, and often does so for the wrong reasons. It also implies that the "offender" should change something, apologise, recant, regardless of whether the offended party was right to be offended.

Now, this is a sensitive (!) subject, because we live in a world where advocates of inclusion, whether their focus is on social matters, gender or culture, get constantly told not to be offended, that "they didn't mean it that way", or have to deal with lame fauxpologies.

 

Power differential

Context is everything, but let's take a hypothetical example. I believe that there is no God. Some theists will find this offensive, and a vocal minority will be outraged at someone openly stating their atheism in their presence. However, my not believing in God has no bearing on how they live their life. They can still go to church, rest comfortably in the fact that most people around them share their beliefs, and I don't tell these people they cannot believe whatever it is that they believe.

A different example is that when a woman causes a traffic accidents, some people will be at hand to - all in good jest, surely - blame the accident on the fact that she is a woman. That is really offensive, because it adds some more spice to the steaming dish of sexism and misogyny that our societies constantly have at the ready, effectively barring women from a not so insignificant number of domains, equal rights be damned.

There's another nuance that needs to be made. If someone was to say to me: "I hate straight, white people and I wish they would be executed" that is of course hate speech, but unless that person is directly threatening me or is in a social position to hurt me, it's nothing more than an empty - stupid as it may be - gesture. I would be right to take offence at the statement, but the outrage would be comparatively shallow.

 

Threat and power

Maybe it's more productive, then, to speak about threat and power factors in statements? An analysis of those will always be subjective, and possibly open to abuse from people who thrive on paranoia, but it at least forces participants in a discussion to look at a number of underlying facts instead of yelling "I'm offended!" and/or "don't be so easily offended!".

Another reason for writing this is because language that is fundamental to the cause of progress or the advancement of minorities is continually being re-appropriated by groups in power to portray themselves as the oppressed. This is clear from my example of the atheist statement - and I'll get back to things like this more coherently later when discussing rhetorics. Many American Christians do, in fact, falsely believe they are being oppressed.

 

What we should be asking

If someone says "I take offence at X", it's always a good idea never to summarily dismiss it, but I do believe it should be dismissed if it rests on nothing but false claims. Is there a question list we can tick off? Never completely, because each case is different, but a few questions might help:

1. What is the specific context?
2. Is there an implied threat?
3. Is there a significant power differential?
4. Is someone's freedom being restricted?
5. Does the statement inflict actual harm?

Come back later for more on rhetorics of progress!

Progress and cultural imperialism

Let's get the irony here straight out of the way: my mother language is Dutch, yet I choose to write about socio-political and some philosophical issues in English in hopes of broadening my audience, at the risk of potentially alienating some members of my home audience. So it's kind of rich that I'm going to be complaining about Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism. But I am. And I must. What's more: as someone who has been deeply immersed in Anglo-Saxon culture, maybe my position makes my criticism more legitimate beyond the average talking point.

For two years in a row, I've participated in discussions about Zwarte Piet, a Belgo-Dutch folklore figure, and its problematic ties to colonialism and racism. In each instance, I've met stubborn resistance from Americans who, like me, also believed that Zwarte Piet was racist, but refused to accept any other type of racism than the one they knew. These were all self-avowed progressives, yet their desire to brand a foreign racist tradition with their own kind of racism made them blind to the cultural realities of the European countries they were criticising.

That's just an example. But, whether left- or right-wing, there is no denying that not only does Anglo-Saxon culture (and predominantly American culture) export itself thoughtlessly as a byproduct of its leading economic role in the world, it also influences media and perceptions in other countries. This is not new. For instance, the often derided hostility to homosexuality in the Middle East and Africa may be an indirect influence of puritan European attitudes in the era of colonization.

By taking so much cues from American culture, we risk setting back a number of debates at home. Obviously, it's a terrible thing that abortion is still an issue in the US, but I don't want to discuss it. It is legal in my own country and there's no point for me to discuss foreign domestic policy that has no impact on me or people around me. The same is true for gay marriage, frat boys' rape guides or access to contraception: these are not really issues in my culture, and having them forced upon me is a waste of time and energy. Yet it's very hard to avoid them because international feminism is so utterly dominated by its Anglo-Saxon variety.

There is a less obvious consequence of this, too. It lulls  Europeans to sleep, smugly comfortable with how progressive they are for not denying women the pill or having something that is at least an attempt at sex education, whereas the Irish and Americans are still stuck in their God-fearing ways. Smugness like this obfuscates that sexism in continental Europe can be just as vile, aggressive and backwards as in other countries, but is so in different ways.

I also want to make a general point about this cultural influence. Engaging more deeply with the 'Anglosphere' is mainly a thing with younger and highly-educated people in the Netherlands and Belgium. Most of these distrust homegrown nationalism, some of these look down on local culture (or did you think it was a coincidence so many Dutch and Flemish bands sing in English?), and a still smaller segment has opted out of Dutch or Flemish culture almost entirely.
 

This is not without danger: it may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy (the more people who turn their back on local culture, the poorer it will become). It may also lead to confusing cultural notions, where you end up not truly belonging to either culture. Instead of forming a synthesis between cultures, you become trapped in a cultural uncanny valley where you are neither a full member of the Anglosphere - and never can be - yet find yourself too distant from your local culture to fully participate in it.