Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Jul
12
Ten Offensive Lies That the Patriarchy Would Love You to Believe
Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, bigotry, discrimination, fat-shaming, gender, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, stereotypes, work | Posted by Cara |
The other day, astute reader Sara sent me the most outrageous and offensive article I have read in a long time: Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature from Psychology Today. My jaw literally hurts from hanging open in horror for so long.
Due to the long nature and extreme quotability of the article, I’m going to have to limit this discussion to the four most misogynist points. I’ll also only be able to provide partial quotes from each, so make sure to read the whole article. This is one to spread around widely: these asshole Ph. D.s are actually going to publish this garbage– and more– in a book in September. We might as well get a head start on the media circus.
“Truth” #1: “Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)”
Long before TV—in 15th- and 16th- century Italy, and possibly two millennia ago—women were dying their hair blond. A recent study shows that in Iran, where exposure to Western media and culture is limited, women are actually more concerned with their body image, and want to lose more weight, than their American counterparts. It is difficult to ascribe the preferences and desires of women in 15th-century Italy and 21st-century Iran to socialization by media.
Okay. So I want to bang my head against the desk already. Yes, in fact, you can blame both on socialization. It’s not all about media, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard any intelligent feminist suggest that it is. It’s also about cultural attitudes towards women. Iran is a highly misogynist culture. And to the best of my knowledge, pretty much 15th-century anywhere was also highly misogynist. Women aren’t obsessed with their looks simply because they see images of beautiful women. They are obsessed with their looks because they are told that they have no worth outside of them.
Men prefer young women in part because they tend to be healthier than older women. One accurate indicator of health is physical attractiveness; another is hair. Healthy women have lustrous, shiny hair, whereas the hair of sickly people loses its luster. Because hair grows slowly, shoulder-length hair reveals several years of a woman’s health status.
Oh, really? Physical attractiveness is an accurate indicator of health??? Firstly, doctors, physical attractiveness is arbitrarily determined based on culture, a point that you continuously ignore through this misogynist little assessment. Secondly, are we to actually believe you when you say that women big noses (not considered “attractive” in western culture!) are not as healthy as those with smaller ones? That my brown hair is actually an indicator that I am not as healthy as a blond friend? Big ears, crooked teeth, eyes that are too close together, these are indicators of a lack of health? No. Seriously. Who the hell gave you those Ph. D.s?
“Truth” #3: # Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.
The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that’s much better than not marrying anyone at all.
The article already argued that polygyny (where a man has several wives) is “natural” while polyandry (where a woman has several husbands) is not, simply because polygyny has a longer and more common history. Seems like a pretty shoddy basis to me. Using that same theoretical framework, it’s also “natural” for blacks to be slaves and women to be constantly pregnant. Except that, oh wait, oppression is cultural not biological.
On to the supposed benefit to polygyny for women– what the fuck? Believe it or not, women don’t marry men solely for their money. In fact, in these modern times, a lot of the more uppity bitches actually have their own jobs. Shocking and shameful, I know. But also true! Unlike this dumbass assertion.
“Truth” #5: Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
Sociologists and demographers have discovered that couples who have at least one son face significantly less risk of divorce than couples who have only daughters. Why is this?
Since a man’s mate value is largely determined by his wealth, status, and power—whereas a woman’s is largely determined by her youth and physical attractiveness—the father has to make sure that his son will inherit his wealth, status, and power, regardless of how much or how little of these resources he has. In contrast, there is relatively little that a father (or mother) can do to keep a daughter youthful or make her more physically attractive.
Ah, yes. And as the esteemed authors have already “convinced” us, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with valuing women solely on their looks! It’s human nature to objectify women! Don’t talk to them, talk to GOD. You see, men need offspring that they can actually be proud of. Not worthless mouths to feed. Wait. What century are we living in again? It’s sometimes hard to tell.
“Truth” #10: # Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
No. Really. They actually said that.
Psychologist Kingsley R. Browne identifies two types of sexual harassment cases: the quid pro quo (“You must sleep with me if you want to keep your job or be promoted”) and the “hostile environment” (the workplace is deemed too sexualized for workers to feel safe and comfortable). While feminists and social scientists tend to explain sexual harassment in terms of “patriarchy” and other ideologies, Browne locates the ultimate cause of both types of sexual harassment in sex differences in mating strategies.
Oh. I see. Men aren’t harassing women– they’re just trying to mate with them in a completely inappropriate environment in a way that the women find uncomfortable. Wait. Isn’t that harassment?
Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as “overly sexual” or “hostile” behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers. Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment.
Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men’s repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.
You got that, ladies? Before you entered the workforce, men used to slap each other’s asses and threaten to fire each other if sexual intercourse was refused. They also used to comment inappropriately on each other’s clothing and repeatedly ask each other out on dates. Now that you’re there, they get to do all of these things to you! It sure was a drag, before.
That sensitive guy who treats you respectfully, discusses politics with you and doesn’t constantly stare at your legs? He’s the sexist who thinks that you can’t handle the “pressure” of the workplace. So the next time your boss requests a blow job in exchange for a promotion, you should thank him– it’s his way of letting you know that you’re a part of the team.
And now I vomit.
Comments
17 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
Oh, yeah. I read this whole article the other day, too, and I was totally outraged. I can’t even believe that garbage was published.
I am SO upset that this is actually going to be published…I can’t even explain.
This is beyond sickening. Apparently, this pathetic magazine is filled with fuckwad rape-apologist employees (and probably a rapist or ten). What does their sexual harrassement policy look like? “Female employees are required to express their delight in having their asses pinched and are required to be ecstatic when ‘asked’ to have sex with male employees to keep their jobs”?
I sent the following e-mail to as many addresses I could find at Evo-Psych Yesterday’s site:
Fuckers. Every last one of them.
Excellent letter! Bravo! I think that you just out-did my post!
High five, Rachel! I would just send something uselessly snarky like: I understand you’re frustrated with not getting laid right now, but sadly writing ‘academic’ papers on how women are denying biology by not giving you blowjobs won’t actually convince them to do so. We’re so illogical.
And that won’t help anything.
I really want to know where those morons got their degrees, though. I have friends that are going to be getting doctorates in Psycology, and I would like to warn them away from a department that vets such filth.
Also, the History major must make a comment on 15th and 16th century hair bleaching in Italy:
They are talking about courtly women in Venice. That’s a pretty small population, and despite Boticelli’s obsession with pale hair, it wasn’t a fad that wasn’t remotely close to being embraced by all Italian women of the time. Unlike the other countries in Europe that were major powers at this time, Italy was warm enough that fully covering ones head was pretty uncomfortable. Sun + hair equals lighter hair! Shock. My guess as to causes of this would be 1) Botecelli’s personal obsession being a ‘media influence’, 2) women with long hair they usual wore up that was getting sun bleached anyway wanting a more overall color instead of chunks of their hair naturally turning different shades in chunks, 3) Venice being a major trading port, and thus recieving a lot of outside influence from other countries. What other area was a big center for art and trade then? The Netherlands, which has quite the population of natural blondes. Perhaps there was cultural influence there?
Sorry about the essay, I just really despise the idea that just because there wasn’t internet and TV back then no one had any concept of the outside world. Sure, it took longer to travel. And people did it anyway.
OH. MY. GOD. I don’t know how I made it through the whole article. Even more scary than the article, for me, is looking to the right on the website and seeing that this column of bullshit is the #1 e-mailed article on their site. So how many sexist pricks are e-mailing this to their girlfriends with an “I told you so” subject attached? Barf barf barf.
Thank you, Cara and Lancastrian. I was wondering if the letter was overwrought, but I was absolutely livid after reading that “article”.
Wow…I…Wow. RachelPhilPa, I hope you don’t mind, I just copied and pasted your email because you worded it so well!
It’s entirely possible to write an article in the same manner arguing against every one of their points (ie: women live longer and therefore it is natural for them to have more sexual partners than men)- it’s all just conjecture and really unprofessional. I will certainly never be buying that magazine again and will tell others to do the same!
I saw this last night, and other people were talking about being offended by it. I thought of sending it to you, but now I see you saw it before I did!
I actually laughed out loud in a couple places, a sort of horrified, this must be satire laugh.
You would really hope that it’d be satire! Unfortunately, it’s not.
Thank you so much for your great arguments against this bilge water masquerading as science. I can’t even believe that a major publication printed this, let alone that it’s coming out as a book. This is from the same guys who brought us the “brilliant” analysis linking why you [i.e. men] can’t get a date on Saturday night, and why most suicide bombers are Muslim. (The link: polygyny). Duh.
as a recent graduate with only a B.A. in psychology, i can say that psychology today is NOT a respected publication in the field. it is widely viewed as fluff, and is marketed toward the general, unscientific public. so while this could be seen as slightly less horrifying than if such an article had appeared in a respected, peer-reviewed journal of psyhcology, in a way it’s MORE horrifying, because the readers of psychology today are less likely to be skeptical about its claims, meaning that this rubbish is going to be accepted by many who read it as scientifically proven fact, which makes me madder than hell.
Well, I have not gotten any response from anybody at Evo-Psych Yesterday. I’m not suprised. I suppose my e-mail triggered their “hairy-legged man-hating feminist” filters.
in a way it’s MORE horrifying, because the readers of psychology today are less likely to be skeptical about its claims, meaning that this rubbish is going to be accepted by many who read it as scientifically proven fact
exactly! and we’ll have to continue fighting the tide with a single sword. sigh.
Wow. I mean, WOW. That article makes me want to vomit as well. Fucking idiots who wrote that.
I was sickened when I read the comment that a woman runs that magazine and approved that. I wonder slightly if she’s never been sexually harrassed at work, and is jealous that it never happened. Oy.
Echidne wrote a series of entries breaking down the BS of the article. EXTREMELY informative. I’m just to the point where she talks about one of the authors, how he has no credibility, and was the author of most of the studies he’s cited. Here’s something she dug up about him:
more at her site