What did these men say or do? Well, she was dressed for a costume party as the super heroine Black Canary, in fishnets and a black leotard. By her own description, the men on the elevator greeted her with a laugh, asked where she was going, and when she told them, asked if they could go. She declined and got off the elevator at her floor.
She writes:
They didn’t say anything foul, they certainly didn’t touch me, and it wasn’t even close to harassment by the standards of our society.
So great then, right? Uh-uh. Because she then writes about 400 more words about "the patriarchal imperative to judge women primarily by their physical appearance," and how that is extremely unpleasant. And equates the men's remarks with yelling "show your tits" out a car window or groping a woman on a train.
I don't get it. I'll take the heat for this. Even though another undercurrent of the entry (and Deborah's) is that men are not allowed to criticize women, women are only allowed to criticize men. And you know how I love that attitude.
But sometimes I have what I think I'll start calling "bullhorn moments." That's when I'm looking at something that seems to me to have a whole lot of bullshit in it, and start wishing I could pop into a scene and cut through it with a few words on a bullhorn.
Like when I see pundits talking around and around in circles about how or why George W. Bush has done something.
"BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A LIAR AND A CRIMINAL. THAT'S WHAT HE DOES, IT'S WHO HE IS."
Or, in this case:
"YOU WERE DRESSED IN A COSTUME THAT WAS DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE ADOLESCENT SEXUAL FANTASIES OF 11-YEAR-OLD BOYS."
And I find myself wondering: Is it supportive of patriarchal harassment to say I feel it's somewhere between confusing and hypocritical to then fly into high dudgeon because you are assessed on your appearance?
Is there anything those guys could have said in that situation that would not have been construed as harassment? Not even a "You look very nice?
Is the appropriate response to someone wearing such clothing no response at all?
If so, why does one wear it?
(One or two of these questions are anticipated in the women's original blog entries. The answer, apparently, is that to question women is to blame women, who are free from responsibility.)
But then, again, I know it's my problem. I think of women as confident and strong-perhaps even more so when they're dressed in ways that indisputably invite comment on and assessment of their appearance.
Not only then (absolutely not only then), but perhaps even more so. To me, a woman wearing such a costume is sending a not terribly coded message. That message is something like: "I think I have nice legs-nice enough to make this costume work." There may even be an implied "What do you think?" attached, but not necessarily.
That message is not (he said, spelling something out he hoped would be self-evident, in the interest of preventing misunderstanding) "I invite you to talk dirty to/grope/rape me."
Things like this make me just a little bit angry. Not because I think men should be able to say or do anything they want to women.
I'd like to repeat that, again because I fear a jumping to conclusion.
I do not think men should be able to say or do anything they want to women.
I just hate being reminded that, as confident and strong as I like to think of women, some of them apparently see themselves as scared fragile little flowers who must be protected at all times.
Even the ones who like to dress up as super heroines.
Or, to put it another way: Would the real Black Canary give two shits about what a couple of nameless guys said on an elevator?
11 comments:
I think you are right. If I feel confident enough to wear something that shows off my (ahem) assets, then I am completely aware that said outfit invites--at the very least--some thoughts, and maybe a comment; most of which are likely to be complimentary (if crude). If I don't, I just throw on baggy clothes and wear no make-up.
This girl (I hesitate to call her a woman) was feeling defensive about being in a costume. I've met girls like that a million times. Those poor bastards in the elevator wouldn't have been able to breathe (normally) in her direction without her coming to the conclusion that they were perv-ing on her.
See, THIS is why I used to hate being referred to as a feminist. Hypocritical girls/women like her set the cause of equality back decades. The fact is, if you're acting like an asshole, you deserve to be called on it, regardless of your gender.
Perhaps you are not fully prepared to be told you sound marginal and meaningly, for I hear you censor comments.
Your framing of the event as an argument that men are "not allowed to criticize women" is, I believe, what you rest your charge of hypocrisy on. Criticism it is called in the context of a critique of someone's intellectual discussion. "Blame" is what it is called when you assign responsibility for negative behaviour. And when you assign responsibility for negative behaviour not to the person who perpetrated it, but to the victim, that's appalling and loathsome.
To answer your question as to why a woman would wear specific clothing if she did not want any reaction from men: Sometimes, women do things for reasons that have nothing to do with men. You may find this distasteful, and feel compelled to blog about it.
Your insinuations that the blogger in question is a coward because she felt threatened by something men said in the elevator betray an ignorance of the reality of violence toward women. The real Black Canary is a master martial artist and can incapacitate men with her voice. A woman should not have to be a martial artist with a disabling weapon in order to go to a costume party.
If you hear I censor comments, you hear wrong. The only comments I have ever deleted from this blog are spam.
(the only exception is when a friend inadvertently revealed something I'd told her in confidence)
Both blog entries seem to me fairly explicit in expressing the idea that if I question their assertions, I am blaming women for something. I don't believe I am.
Whether women do things that have nothing at all to do with men is one thing. I know they do very well.
Whether it's reasonable for them to expect no comment on it at all is another.
I wasn't trying to insinuate that the woman was a coward, I was trying to comment, perhaps not entirely succesfully, on what I see as a bitter irony:
A woman who dresses as a super heroine yet apparently cannot cope with any even moderate attention it brings her.
I think I am aware of the reality of violence against women-aware enough to know that this woman's crisis appears to have been in her head.
No, women shouldn't have to be weapons-carrying martial artists for fear of harm.
Nor should men have to be mute and meek in the presence of women for fear of being thought dangerous.
The real Black Canary is a master martial artist and can incapacitate men with her voice.
Uh...you do realize that there is no real Black Canary, right?
Sorry but I don't get it either. Karen had an embarrassing moment, and any woman I know has had those--where you put on an outfit, you get in the elevator and catch a glimpse of yourself in those "3-way" mirrors and feel like hitting yourself over the head in a "what was a I thinking" moment. I don't see a real crisis here.
Now if those guys had asked me if they could join, I would have asked if they brought their ear plugs to dampen my sonic cry, or some other wise-ass comment. Or laughed, I tend to laugh at situations like that.
I do agree with Betty on one thing: "Sometimes, women do things for reasons that have nothing to do with men." Yes, women sometimes dress to compete... with other women.
You just can't dress in a costume and take life too seriously at the same time. Or maybe I'm a complete fool who's watched too much South Park.
So the only judge of when a woman is allowed to feel threatened is ...you? Perhaps I should get your contact information so I can consult with you next time I am alone in a sealed box with several men, and they make sexually suggestive comments. I wouldn't want to feel threatened without your approval because I do fear losing your respect.
I don't think I was saying anyone, this woman or you, isn't allowed to feel any way they feel.
I was saying, based on her own description of the event, she doesn't appear to me to actually have *been* threatened.
There's a difference, and it has nothing to do with my "approval" or not.
Although, I do approve of bold women, and to me, a bold woman (or man) is not one who sweats having her opinions questioned.
I don't get it. I'll take the heat for this. Even though another undercurrent of the entry (and Deborah's) is that men are not allowed to criticize women, women are only allowed to criticize men.
I don't believe you can support that supposition in any way.
"For one thing, there are men there – intelligent, thinking men who never start sentences with “What you ladies really should do is-“
"Blaming women for others harassing or abusing them based on how attractive they are or what they were wearing at the time is normal."
Okay, first of all, both of those quotes are from Karen's post, so you haven't responded in any way to what I posted, but you included me (parenthetically) in your criticism.
But let's talk about the quotes you pulled from Karen. You said "men are not allowed to cricize women." You pulled one quote that said some men are patronizing. Which is true and unpleasant; I mean surely, Ben, you can tell the difference between criticism and being patronizing?
Your second example of 'men not being allowed to criticize' is pointing out that it is normal to blame the victim when it is a woman being harrassed. It has nothing to do with criticism.
So you still haven't substantiated your belief that mean ol' feminists don't allow men to criticize.
The point I was trying to make was that I believe the original post associates harrasment with any criticism, therefore to criticise a woman is to harass a woman.
Also, there's a reason why I said "undercurrent," and I might even be wrong.
But I never said anything like "mean old feminists." My belief isn't that "mean old feminists" don't allow men to criticise.
It's that, at least in this instance, Karen, you, and Betty don't.
Neither you or Betty, for example, seem to have had anything to say to either of the women who critisized Karen's post here. Just me.
I wonder why that is?
Post a Comment