Posts Tagged ‘ men ’

Am I Feministy Enough for You?

Turns out, I’m not just 102 85 kilograms of feminsm. I’m many things.

I’m a man. So even though I recognize that women are far more commonly mistreated than men, I am not dismissive about the existence of misandry either. I despise the term “reverse-sexism”, because it implies that discrimination against women is different from that against men. It’s all “sexism”, plain and simple. If you rant about how not all women love the color pink, and end your speech with “Urgh, men and their stupid obsession with sports!”, you’re being sexist.

Furthermore, I’m a man of science, thus not a fan of the idea that any study whose conclusion does not fall perfectly in line with what’s considered politically correct, must be false (and the scientist behind the study must be a rape-apologist).

Feminism (fem-uh-niz-um) is a movement advocating social, political, and all other rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men. Up till here, I’m feminist to the bone. It is not a prudish rampage. It is not a movement of man-haters, porn-haters, science deniers or of those who pity or judge all sex workers for their line of work.

Unfortunately, the movement seems to have been overrun by the Jezebel crowd and when I call myself a feminist, I’m often stereotyped as being an angry, man-hating, sex-phobic person. I’m many things, but not that.

As theists have traditionally used the term “God did it” to explain everything without having to prove anything, many feminists have latched on the term “patriarchal society” as an explanation to all their woes. The feminist theory asserts that there are no real psychological and behavioral differences between men and women, and all observed differences in the way males and females behave is the result of society teaching us to do so.

Science asks why the society became patriarchal in the first place. The common feminist explanation, I can only imagine, is that Bam-Bam I, the High King of the Cave People, ordered all men to go out and hunt, and leave women to cook and clean inside the caves. And this law has been followed ever since. The scientific idea, is that the way society has become structured today in a patriarchal form, is the result of genuine biological differences between men and women.

Now if you read the above sentence and went, “Oh? So you’re saying that men should be allowed to rape women because its in their nature?! That gender-based discrimination is natural and shouldn’t be fought against?” then you’re among the stupider variety of feminists who thinks that a natural explanation of behavioral differences among men and women, is necessarily a validation of harmful discriminatory attitudes and stereotyping.

It isn’t justification. It isn’t apologia. It’s merely scientific inquiry.

Like it or not, men ARE hornier than women and they DO have greater sexual needs. Study after study has proven this fact, and it explains why you’re more likely to find female prostitutes than males.

Does this mean that men must be exempted from controlling their sexual urges? No. Does it mean that we may need to restructure our system that could more easily accommodate people with greater sexual needs (which may include women too) instead of forcing them to battle their instincts out of an artificial sense of propriety? Probably so. Note that sexual assault is not a matter of “propriety” but an actual crime that needs to be prevented no matter what, to maintain social order and ensure prosperity of human race as a whole.

Women ARE more socially aggressive than men, and that’s a proven fact too. Does this mean that all women, in everyday life, must be treated as back-biters? No. Because the study only shows how an average female can be expected to act. It doesn’t show that every woman is more socially aggressive than every man. But is it justified for Jezebel or any other feminist banshee group to deny this research on political grounds? No to that too.

Feminism cannot go very far if it continues to be at war with science, particularly evolutionary psychology, seeing it as a threat to their awkward doctrine that men and women are behaviorally, psychologically the same, and any observed differences are the result of the patriarchal society alone.

Feminism needn’t be that convoluted, and the aim should be simple: Ensure equal rights and opportunities for men and women, regardless of any behavioral/psychological differences that there may be. Because not every man is an “average male” or every woman an “average female”.

Another Blog Post About Bras and Boobs

Feminists, anti-feminists and plain horny people who stumbled upon this piece by accident (no images for you, shoo!), welcome back!

I came across yet another article on bra-burning today, written by a Facebook friend of mine. If you don’t have time to read the entire article about how bras are an invention of a patriarchal society, allow me to summarize it.

One garment to rule them all
One garment to find them
One garment to bring them all
And in Darkness, bind them!

While that captures the essence of the diatribe, I would like to respond a little more specifically to the points raised by the author.

The principal concern is that bras are meant to sexualize a non-sexual body part. This includes training-bras. You can tell that the author’s a male by his obliviousness of what boundless (yes, I use that word most deliberately) joy is to go out jogging with the breasts flying all over the place. In this case, at least, bras have more to do with aerodynamics and comfort than male-domination.  In case you’re asking, I’m a guy too but I have man boobs, so I’m at least partially qualified to make this assessment (not that you needed to know that).

If breasts are a non-sexual body part, then I don’t see why a bra-burning feminist should consider a person ogling at a woman’s breasts
as “sexual” harassment. Perhaps the next time a person says “Excuse me, miss?”, he could knock on the knockers instead of tapping on the shoulder, or any other non-sexual body-part. If the goal is to ‘unsexualize’ the female breasts, then why continue to treat them as sexual objects yourselves?

The author – no, wait. I think the term ‘random-guy-with-access-to-the-keyboard’ is more appropriate. The guy spices up his argument with the claim that bras can cause breast cancer. As a doctor, I’ve never heard of this (probably because sexist men control medical science). I couldn’t find any credible study on this on the internet either. I’m guessing this is no more of a hazard than a tight neck-tie is for males, as it causes throat problems, cardiovascular issues and deaths due to entanglement in moving machine parts.

It pisses me off whenever feminists start suggesting that people can be “taught” what they should or shouldn’t be sexually attracted to. This polemic flies awfully close to the gay conversion hypothesis, which I have a personal disgust for due to my bisexual orientation.

Listen, folks, if you could actually teach a person what to be sexually attracted to, gays would not exist! I cannot imagine anyone in our exquisitely homophobic societies teaching young boys to be attracted to abs, muscular pecs or facial hair. Yet it happens! It is obvious that when it comes to sexual preferences, nature trumps nurture. It is extremely unlikely that men’s affection for women’s breasts is something that has developed artificially.

While it’s not possible to absolutely rule out environmental influences and the epigenetic triggers, a woman likes what she likes, and a man likes what he likes. Stop trying to make people feel bad about liking the color orange when the socially acceptable choice is blue, especially when this preference deals no real psychosocial harm, and only perceived damage.

A Feminist and an Evolutionary Psychologist Walk into a bar…

There are a lot of people radical feminists hate (not unreasonably so, in most cases) and frequently argue with. But if you ever manage to find a feminist and an evolutionary psychologist at the same table, get some popcorn.

Feminists and evolutionary psychologists make natural enemies for the following reason:

Feminism asserts that the gender stereotypes and current mindsets about gender roles, are the product of the culture of patriarchy. Evolutionary psychology postulates that the way human societies are structured today, is the natural result of our evolution. In other words, it’s not the culture of patriarchy that gave birth to gender roles and stereotyping. It’s our innate, gender-stereotypical behavior that generated the patriarchal culture.

Evolutionary psychology explains, though not necessarily encourages, gender stereotyping as a natural behavior. Here’s why:

Take, for instance, these popular notions that feminists aren’t too pleased with:
– Women are easily intimidated, while men are stronger and more aggressive.
– Men have greater sexual needs than women

Almost universally in the animal kingdom (and more pertinently, among our evolutionary ancestors), it is the males who compete with each other to mate with the female. The female does not have to compete for the male. This is because a female only reproduces once every 9 months (different for various species, plus the lactation period), while a male reproduces around the year.

Because of this, the male has a reproductive advantage if he fertilizes multiple females simultaneously. The female, however, would receive no such benefit because she can only reproduce once in several months, no matter how many males she mates with.

As a result, we see males who are constantly searching for mates while females aren’t. This generates intense competition among the males, in which the more aggressive, narcissistic males have a natural advantage. The males thus evolved to become more aggressive and ever-ready for intercourse.

Females, on the other hand, had no natural advantage in scurrying around looking for males to mate with. Consequently, the female gender evolved to be less aggressive than men. Also, since mates were available to the females a dollar a dozen, they’ve had the luxury to be more choosy. This is why females are less obsessed about sex than men are.

This is as I said, merely an explanation of why things are the way they are, not how they have to be in modern society. For instance, evolution has designed us to bear and nourish our own kids. Instead, we sometimes adopt children and help advance their genetic lineage.

As repulsed as we often are by the idea of biological determinism in these situations, we have to acknowledge the presence of real biological barriers in combating certain behaviors. This is not the same as being an apologist for misogynism, but recognizing that undoing hundreds of thousands of years of behavioral shaping is not something that can be done in a matter of decades.

Gender stereotyping is wrong, because it does injustice to the outliers in the group. Women who are physically strong, and men who are not hypersexual should not be clumped with the average people and receive blanket treatment.

Some behaviors, however, are so deeply ingrained within the male psyche that fixing them could be a pathological change.

Radical feminists sometimes complain about men who drool over pictures of nude women, and in doing so, they’re not fighting for gender equality as much as they’re calling for global castration. No amount of education and awareness could make a male less titillated by erotic imagery.

In such cases, it’s far more rewarding to rethink our expectations than to fight our hardwired biological instincts. Sex-positive feminism, which I subscribe to, proposes that we change our attitude about sex by removing the stigma, instead of railing out against men for their desire seek it. A stripper, female or male, is degrading herself or himself only if we believe it’s a degrading job.

Why is quenching a patron’s thirst as a bartender not as great an embarrassment as serving a client as a prostitute? It’s because the society has not stigmatized the former, or at least, not the the extent as it has the latter.

Misandry: No, seriously! It exists!

(Note: I have officially disowned part of this piece. My perspective has evolved since the time I wrote it)

If I am asked to make a list of scientists and freethinkers who have not been harshly criticized by the radical feminist banshees at one point or another, I’d find myself in a pretty tough spot.

Richard Dawkins, the poster-man of atheism, was savagely attacked by feminists over his failure to make a fuss about Rebecca Watson being propositioned in an elevator. Christopher Hitchens was humiliated merely for saying that women can choose not to work, if they don’t want to. Stephen Hawking generated controversy when he jokingly claimed that women are a mystery to him. Satoshi Kanazawa (and Psychology Today as whole) has been blasted for his views on modern feminism. And Bill Maher…ooh boy.

Nothing is spared from the pointy end of the radical feminist saber. Science, religion, atheism, comedy, sex, everything is an affront to the sanctity of the ovary. Misogynism, however thinly veiled, elicits instant criticism (and rightfully so). Misandry, on the other hand, is politically correct. There’s little problem with women laughing about a man’s penis being chopped off by an angry wife (link: pardon the obscenity), though I have a feeling they’d be less thrilled if the situation involved a woman’s clitoris. Nothing wrong with Alice Walker’s hateful rants about men in the Pulitzer work, The Color Purple. Or about everyday females complaining about how all men are jerks/creeps/liars/idiots. Continue reading

“You’re Sexy” is not an insult

Ever noticed how some feminists love to cry out for equal rights, while expecting to be treated with inordinate chivalry just for being women? Pssst, guys! Should we break it to them that they can’t have it both ways?

Rebecca Watson, self-proclaimed feminist goddess of womankind, was a keynote speaker at a CFI conference where she narrated her harrowing experience in an elevator with a crude man. Here’s what happened.

—WARNING! GRAPHIC CONTENT—

Continue reading