Women
"Woman was taken out of man -- not out of his feet to be trampled underfoot, but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved." - David O. McKay, ninth LDS Church President
"Women - you can't live with 'em, and you can't get 'em to dress up in a skimpy li'l Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash or somethin'..." - Emo Philips, disturbed comedian
"Women are soft and gentle, but they hit things." - vintage Volkswagen ad
"Women - you can't live with 'em, and you can't get 'em to dress up in a skimpy li'l Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash or somethin'..." - Emo Philips, disturbed comedian
"Women are soft and gentle, but they hit things." - vintage Volkswagen ad
Some men think women are perfect goddesses who can do no wrong, while others think less of them than the dust of the Earth. But what is the truth? All I can say for sure is that the childish, neurotic fear of the opposite sex that characterized my adolescence is by now long gone. In its place is a far deeper and more rational fear born of experience. I hope to overcome this fear by learning more about the enemy and mansplaining, uh, I mean listing some of my findings. No, I don't think it will work either.
Beauty Standards
Circa 1937. The more things change...
Society sends conflicting messages about appearances. It assures us (correctly) that looks don't matter, while at the same time bombarding us with images of impossibly perfect and gratuitously sexualized models and celebrities because looks actually do matter. Society's obsession with appearance is merely the outward symptom of a root cause; our animal instincts which say that if you're not attractive then you don't mate, period. Most people are intelligent enough to have controlled these instincts for thousands of years and love each other for who they are, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is the decline of morality and the inention of Photoshop and social media.
The American Psychological Association has found that this objectification has a strong correlation with declining academic performance among young women, and a decrease in the number of them who seek careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. It also correlates with an increase in sexism, sexual harassment and demands for child pornography. The report said: "In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate." Virtually nothing has changed since then.
The American Psychological Association has found that this objectification has a strong correlation with declining academic performance among young women, and a decrease in the number of them who seek careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. It also correlates with an increase in sexism, sexual harassment and demands for child pornography. The report said: "In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate." Virtually nothing has changed since then.
Feminism
Some people consider me a feminist and others consider me a raging misogynist. I let people think what they want, and try to avoid labels that come with too many assumptions that piss people off if you don't live up to them. When the term "feminism" is used in its proper and accurate sense to mean a belief in equal respect, rights and opportunities for men and women, and attempts to constructively address real problems, then I support it like any reasonable person. (I love New Wave feminism in particular.) But when the term is highjacked by a cult of victimhood whose members demand what they think are inalienable rights but actually aren't, dress up as vaginas or mail bloody tampons to legislators when they don't get their way, look for reasons to be offended around every proverbial corner, and very obviously hate men no matter how much they claim otherwise, not so much. Also, "mansplaining" is one of the least catchy or clever words made-up I've ever heard.
Equality and sameness aren't synonyms, though, and there are some instances where we need to keep in mind that sex isn't analogous to race, which is a social construct. Men and women are not identical at heart. Besides the obvious differences, there are less obvious differences that should still be fairly obvious. It's not an issue of claiming one is superior to the other, but their minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and we need to respect that. Rose bushes are prettier and have smaller thorns than cacti, but no one argues that they're superior. Each is as suited as the other to its own niche and no one calls you a bigot for suggesting that each has its own niche. It should also be obvious that not all women are the same and not all men are the same and every generalization will have exceptions.
Some people think my church is sexist for holding to traditional gender roles and not ordaining women to the priesthood or giving them as many leadership positions as men (though in fairness, most of these people don't even know what "the priesthood" is). We can only speculate on God's reasoning for this, and I think most of the reasons speculated on are bullcrap and nobody cares what I think as a male anyway, so I direct curious people to this fascinating article and this rebuttal to its methodology. Basically the main point is that in Latter-day Saint theology every role is equally important and leadership is not supposed to be seen as a status symbol. It concludes that the theology isn't sexist but the culture sometimes is, and that it can change. We have seen in recent years that it is changing, even though most women in the Church were okay with it in the first place and the rebuttal demonstrates how selective sampling severely exaggerated the problem.
Equality and sameness aren't synonyms, though, and there are some instances where we need to keep in mind that sex isn't analogous to race, which is a social construct. Men and women are not identical at heart. Besides the obvious differences, there are less obvious differences that should still be fairly obvious. It's not an issue of claiming one is superior to the other, but their minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and we need to respect that. Rose bushes are prettier and have smaller thorns than cacti, but no one argues that they're superior. Each is as suited as the other to its own niche and no one calls you a bigot for suggesting that each has its own niche. It should also be obvious that not all women are the same and not all men are the same and every generalization will have exceptions.
Some people think my church is sexist for holding to traditional gender roles and not ordaining women to the priesthood or giving them as many leadership positions as men (though in fairness, most of these people don't even know what "the priesthood" is). We can only speculate on God's reasoning for this, and I think most of the reasons speculated on are bullcrap and nobody cares what I think as a male anyway, so I direct curious people to this fascinating article and this rebuttal to its methodology. Basically the main point is that in Latter-day Saint theology every role is equally important and leadership is not supposed to be seen as a status symbol. It concludes that the theology isn't sexist but the culture sometimes is, and that it can change. We have seen in recent years that it is changing, even though most women in the Church were okay with it in the first place and the rebuttal demonstrates how selective sampling severely exaggerated the problem.
Chivalry
Today we've taken one of the small bits of the code of chivalry that wasn't about fighting, and just call it "chivalry". Given what women and girls are put through by our degrading culture, a bit of special treatment doesn't hurt, though I suspect most of it originated from men being like "Maybe if we give women special treatment, they won't notice that we don't let them vote." Of course, there's no reason not to help everyone you encounter and treat them with super respect. Holding doors comes to mind. I do it for anyone who's close enough to make it feasible. If they're too far away, I don't bother because most people actually find it awkward when you make them feel obligated to rush so you don't have to hold the door for too long. The whole "ladies first" thing I'm not crazy about unless the ladies in question are old or pregnant.
Chivalry for its own sake is stupid when it creates more inconvenience for the recipient than it alleviates. On my first date we were in the back of the car and it stopped and my date got out. I thought "Hey, you're supposed to wait for me to get out and go around to the other side and open your door for you!" Then I realized that would be a waste of her time. Oh, and sometimes chivalry seems to create unforeseen issues. In the past, at ward luncheons we always let the ladies get food first and then they tended to all sit together while the guys went up, creating a bit of gender segregation. All I'm saying is it seems a little counter-intuitive to the overarching goal of marrying us off. It also seems unnecessary since I'm pretty sure no one is going to poison our food, which is why that tradition started in Western civilization in the first place.
Some adamantly believe that it's the male's duty to initiate courtship and the female's duty to wait for it, just because. I say that attitude has no place in the twenty-first century. It's based on the natural pattern which dictates that, in every species where females invest more time and energy in their offspring than the males (e.g. nine months of pregnancy), they get to be picky about whose genes go into that offspring, so the males have to take initiative and prove themselves. And in the case of humans it's been exacerbated by a long history of traditions saying that men should be aggressive and women should be passive. The evolutionary part is neutral; the tradition part is bad. But in any case, this mindset places on males the entire burden of rejection anxiety and rejection itself, and on females the entire burden of never being asked out by anyone. When both burdens are shared by everyone they may cancel each other out, like when you have a mosquito bite and you dig your fingernails into it so it hurts instead of itching.
My advice is that if you want to ask someone out, or call them or whatever, just do it regardless of your sex. If you're a woman and insist on sticking to tradition that's your choice, but then you have no right to complain when you don't go on as many dates as you want. Maybe guys don't really notice you, but if you ask one he'll probably say yes, and who knows what could happen from there? If he says no without a legitimate reason, or gets upset with you for "emasculating" him or something like that, then he isn't worth your time and I'm truly sorry that happened but do you think only men should have to experience rejection? By the way, I'm in no way qualified to give advice about such topics, but you'd probably guessed as much. One of my friends used to look up to me for advice on women, and my reaction was "Lord have mercy on you."
See also a page on problems faced by women in today's world, a page about the new girls I encountered at school growing up, and a page about women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Chivalry for its own sake is stupid when it creates more inconvenience for the recipient than it alleviates. On my first date we were in the back of the car and it stopped and my date got out. I thought "Hey, you're supposed to wait for me to get out and go around to the other side and open your door for you!" Then I realized that would be a waste of her time. Oh, and sometimes chivalry seems to create unforeseen issues. In the past, at ward luncheons we always let the ladies get food first and then they tended to all sit together while the guys went up, creating a bit of gender segregation. All I'm saying is it seems a little counter-intuitive to the overarching goal of marrying us off. It also seems unnecessary since I'm pretty sure no one is going to poison our food, which is why that tradition started in Western civilization in the first place.
Some adamantly believe that it's the male's duty to initiate courtship and the female's duty to wait for it, just because. I say that attitude has no place in the twenty-first century. It's based on the natural pattern which dictates that, in every species where females invest more time and energy in their offspring than the males (e.g. nine months of pregnancy), they get to be picky about whose genes go into that offspring, so the males have to take initiative and prove themselves. And in the case of humans it's been exacerbated by a long history of traditions saying that men should be aggressive and women should be passive. The evolutionary part is neutral; the tradition part is bad. But in any case, this mindset places on males the entire burden of rejection anxiety and rejection itself, and on females the entire burden of never being asked out by anyone. When both burdens are shared by everyone they may cancel each other out, like when you have a mosquito bite and you dig your fingernails into it so it hurts instead of itching.
My advice is that if you want to ask someone out, or call them or whatever, just do it regardless of your sex. If you're a woman and insist on sticking to tradition that's your choice, but then you have no right to complain when you don't go on as many dates as you want. Maybe guys don't really notice you, but if you ask one he'll probably say yes, and who knows what could happen from there? If he says no without a legitimate reason, or gets upset with you for "emasculating" him or something like that, then he isn't worth your time and I'm truly sorry that happened but do you think only men should have to experience rejection? By the way, I'm in no way qualified to give advice about such topics, but you'd probably guessed as much. One of my friends used to look up to me for advice on women, and my reaction was "Lord have mercy on you."
See also a page on problems faced by women in today's world, a page about the new girls I encountered at school growing up, and a page about women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
