Friday, August 24, 2007

Fem-aggerations.

I'm still on the tight assumption that no one's reading this sh*t I write, so I'll be brief.

For the small minority of people out there that maybe are reading, and even smaller subfraction of those that actually care, I hereby nickname you Casper (yes it's corny and lame, but its nearly 1 am so give me a friggin break).

Casper, a discussion on a SepiaMutiny thread erupted here that somehow meandered into the realm of "married women's dressing habits in social environments." The entire discussion is available here, however I will snip the relevant points without naming names (as the purpose of this post is to describe the phenomenon and not single any one person out)

[my comments in blue, 3rd party in magenta]

The background is pretty simple, a woman commented that she doesn't go to bars and clubs anymore, to which I asked a general question about why married or [seriously/long term] dating women still engage in the same activity as they did pre-LTR (wearing makeup, wearing designer/"club" clothes) when logically speaking, those activities were done primarily to attract men (or women, if that's your thing):

Which actually brings up sort of another point. why do married or dating women still wear all the makeup and designer clothes and go out?

A discussion went back and forth about how being 'off the market' doesn't preclude one from desiring to be attractive, but importantly the woman offered an anecodote about how repeated approaches from men in clubs are making her less and less interested in going to these types of places.

Again, looking at it from a practical point of view, I suggested in a half joke/half serious way (the preceeding comment was about spending too much time on the toilet):

"...you're just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language in the alone time window when your fiance leaves your side..."


And now Casper, the response I got from this particular person with respect to these points was perfectly sound, however, it's the response from a 3rd party that I endearingly call a

'FEM-aggeration'

And by no means is this an indictment specifically on the particular responder, rather I use it as an example of something I've observed in many, but not all women.

Here it is in part by part, with my response, and reasoning why I categorize this as I have:

Part 1:
"It sounds like you have a really specific idea of how married/taken women are supposed to behave. My decision to have a lifelong partner in crime didn't come with riders on how I'm supposed to dress!"

I never made any claim on what married/taken women are supposed to do. Only asked a question based on logical flow.

Part 2:
Yeah, and let me list some of the behaviors I've seen men read as "screaming 'come talk to me/grab my @ss/make obscene gestures at me'": Talking to a friend Reading in a coffee shop Walking down the street

Notice the effortless conflation of "come talk to me" with "grab my ass" as if the two undeniably go hand in hand. This is the heart of fem-aggeration. It's the assertion that any statement on female complicitness is blaming the 'victim.'

Casper, if you think I'm being disingenuous with my quoting, go back to the original thread and tell me where I ever made mention at physical touching or obscene gestures.

Part 3:
The whopper:

Because being alone in a bar (even if it's just because your husband is running late or in the bathroom) is like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX', right? Yeesh.

This is the fem-aggeration gold medal. I don't even know where to begin on this. how did:

"or you're just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language"

equate to:

"...is like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX'" ??

Again, the person to whom the original comment was directed responded accordingly, however it's the third party that in this case, practiced blantant fem-aggeration.

If any serious discussion is to proceed on these matters, the fairer sex has to try their darndest to not misrepresent statements of female contributions to the process in this way. In particular, augmenting the 'authorized' (eg speaking = grabbing) is something that's done all to seamlessly and all too often.

A distincion has to be made between a genuine, pre-relationship approach, and a run-of-the-mill crass comment, or drive by honking, etc...

There are many guys out there (for example, me) that do not approach at all if :

1. there's even a slight indication she's taken (wedding ring, dancing with guy on shoulder, etc..)
2. the female doesn't at least show some slight interest or 'receptiveness' to a potential approach.

With many men who think this way, it's not an outrageous thought to consider that the women who are being approached are actively doing something to encourage it (by dress, mannerism, body language, etc..)

Oh ya, that's me being brief, good night casper.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

d00d. ur messed up.

bess said...

I was wondering when you were going to start your own blugh. Love that title!
Two points: women who wear make-up and designer clothes continue to do so b/c they still want to look attractive, want to continue to hold the interest of their parnter - and part of that may mean being attractive to others.
As for 3rd Party Magenta - I so love that color- she's feeling harrassed for some reason.
That's not reason enough to go lumping her into a group of
Fem-aggerationistas.
Also, do you, HMF, have a "really specific idea of how married/taken women are supposed to behave."

bess said...

oops! forgive any spelling errors you may notice, please.

THE_HMF said...

Bess,

holding interest in their partner is one thing, what I really meant and clarified later on SM was the married women that go out together, or with their single friends and still dress in the same provocative, "pre-marital" way. It just struck me as odd. But it seems like part of staying attractive to your partner is somehow subtly reminding him/her that you can attract others if it came to it? Doesn't seem like a solid foundation for a relationship.


As for Ms. Magenta, whatever reason she had, it certainly didn't warrant the blatant misrepresentations as I've pointed out.

And sorry to disappoint, I don't plan to start my own blog, rather just address points that I may not be able to address elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

mate
you have rather sound arguments - keep at it and maybe in 50 years we will see a change in the attitudes of the 'fem-aggregators'

bess said...

*smack smack smack* from the
Fem-aggressors. Should I add a smiley face to indicate I'm joking?

But seriously HMF, you're better off not trying to understand women.
It was a gay playwright who said it best:
"Women are to be loved, not understood." ~ O. Wilde

THE_HMF said...

If you're saying women are incomprehensible by their very nature, then, thats sad, but I find that statement somewhat reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I liked what you had to say about race on SM...but I cannot believe you believe that harrassment is brought on by what a woman wears (there was a project in India a while ago where women donated clothes they were harassed in for a work of public art that aimed to show what perfectly ordinary clothes women have been harassed in). Harassment is about domination. Get that clear. No matter how snazzy you look when you are out somewhere, I highly doubt you frequently get women throwing nasty comments at you.

So you're basically the garden-variety anti-racist male who can't comprehend intersectionality/feminism/the fact that you have male privilege. Sad. I recommend you start checking out the writings of women of color. You can start at brownfemipower.com, which has links to many other women of color bloggers as well.

~B

Anonymous said...

A good example of an anti-racist, feminist ally and man of color is Kevin at the blog, Slant Truth.

THE_HMF said...

"but I cannot believe you believe that harrassment is brought on by what a woman wears "

Umm. can you read? I was restricting this discussion to bar/club /social settings in the United States. Not arranged marriage joint family bullshits where the women is locked in a cage.

I'd like you to read this article again, and let me know where I've misrepresented what was said, and what context it was said in.

When I issue this challenge, and obviously no one can meet it. the only recourse is to shift spheres and bring up violence and rape and these other things...

Anonymous said...

Boyfriends and husbands like it when other men think their women are "hot". We often hear complaints of men who say their women have "let themselves go" after settling down. That means they stopped working out and watching what they eat, i.e. got fat, stopped dressing up or accentuating their best assets, stopped wearing make-up, in short, just stopped caring about how they look because they finally nabbed a good man and once you got him you don't have to do that stuff anymore, right?

Wrong.

Husbands still want to people to think that they were enough to nab a hottie. It fuels a man's ego to walk into a room and have all eyes on his wife, even if he's not there.

Anonymous said...

Should read, "husbands still want people to think they were ALPHA enough to nab a hottie."