Log in

Tue, Jan. 18th, 2011, 08:32 pm
gender roles in our society are broken

this entry is still VERY MUCH under construction, but i'd like some commentary on it anyway
it is in many ways a continuation of the thoughts of this rough draft post made a year ago: http://illicitlearning.livejournal.com/56126.html

as this reddit comment illustrates:

there is a process occurring in our society, where the roles of men and women are being redefined. in the past, women were considered very much to be second class citizens, and the woman's sphere was kept very separate from the man's sphere. feminist activism has attempted to merge the male and female spheres, with varying degrees of success. in some ways, it has been extremely successful. in others, it has been less so.

the current problem as i see it is this one: women have increasing (but still limited) access to the men's sphere - it is becoming more and more okay for a woman to do "masculine" things. but less progress has been made on giving men access to the woman's sphere. this is, as far as i can tell, based on the very fundamental idea that femininity is worse than masculinity. it is understandable for women to want to have access to masculine things. it is not understandable for men to want to have access to feminine things. in short, because the female sphere is seen as undesirable and relatively unimportant, less work has been made to grant men access to it than has been done to grant women access to the male sphere.

it seems like most gender stereotypes in our society are two faces of the same bad coin. some examples of how gender role segregation hurts both men and women:

if a man
likes children
can cook
can clean up after himself
knows how to do laundry
doesn't like sports
is unemployed
wears makeup
wears 'feminine' clothing
has long hair
follows fashion
isn't interested in sex
he is treated with surprise and suspicion.

if a woman
doesn't like children
can't cook
doesn't keep a tidy house
can't do laundry
has a demanding job
likes sports
has a high sex drive
doesn't wear makeup
wear 'masculine' clothes
has short hair
doesn't follow fashion
she is treated with disbelief and derision.

women are discouraged from pursuing careers that would make it harder for them to care for their presumed children (even if they would make more money to provide for their children). they are granted extended maternity leave. men are discouraged from pursuing careers that would prevent them from providing for their presumed children (even if they would have more time to spend caring for their children). they are granted no paternity leave.

divorce and single parenting - men are expected to be providers and are not granted time to spend with their children. women are assumed to lack sufficient financial resources to provide for their children, and are granted caretakership over them.

this sort of thing is also related to the concept of chivalry - men would do certain things for women because it was assumed that women were incapable or needed the help. and women were reluctant to give up those benefits because they were nice, even though they were based on negative views of the feminine. in this case, men are reluctant to assume feminine roles, seeing that

when a news article is posted about a man being raped (especially if it was by a woman, ESPECIALLY if it was by a young, thin, conventionally attractive woman), people don't react with horror and sympathy. the overwhelming response is disbelief and patronizing envy - he must have wanted it. it is seen as masculine to want sex with young, thin, conventionally attractive women. thus, those men who don't - those who like older, or fatter, or less attractive women, or men - are seen as less masculine. men who were raped by young, thin, attractive women are seen as crazy or lying. furthermore, masculinity entails strength - it is assumed that a man could physically stop his rape "if he really didn't want it". if he couldn't, he is considered weak and unmasculine.

-since the beginning of the feminist movement, there has been a fear that men will be made to play the woman's role. this fear persists, and it is one of the main problems with the redifinition of the male gender role. men feel like women are taking over their role and making them irrelevant, but men taking on the feminine role is not seen as an option.

when a trans woman is seen as male, she is seen as a threat to other women.

Other reading to do before I write the final version:

THIS IMAGE: http://carovisi.tumblr.com/post/4441982078/the-person-owning-thirdw0rld-tumblr-com-says-this

This post sums up kyriarchy as it applies to self expression pretty well: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/gn2sq/this_is_such_a_depressing_social_truth/c1osnpi

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 05:28 am (UTC)
Michelle Louden: things!

This is all very on-point. I appreciate how much it points out how men are being hurt by restrictive gender roles, and also how this still stems from misogyny. One other thing that I was reminded of while reading this is how recently (in the past 20ish years) our society has begun discouraging certain things that used to be associated with masculinity and responsibility--like getting married and having a family. Our society is still pushing women toward desiring these things, however. It seems as though we're pushing men toward having more power and avoiding responsibility while pushing more of the responsibility on women. Almost to say, "here, you wanted to do everything that a man can do? well you can, but you still have to do everything that a woman does too." Meanwhile we're telling men "learn, work hard, be successful, don't get tied down, and have power over women."

this is just one observation I've had and is open to many other interpretations.

Other than that, everything is very to the point.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 06:03 am (UTC)
londubh: Re: things!

minor thing, if I may...

While your assessment is not inaccurate, it kinda rubbed me wrong to say "this still stems from misogyny." It seems to me that misogyny is analogous to racism in that it's a derailing term*; it sounds to me as though you're saying "men hate women," even I'm fairly certain you mean "society values women less," which further believe is an accurate statement.

This impression is problematic because even if I Do value women less, it is not a pleasant thought to face, and will put even those of us who consider ourselves feminists and work towards equality on our back foot, and defensive. It's kinda like Jay Smooth's piece on Racism.

Perhaps a phrase that would be more conducive to intelligent discussion would be to blame society, not the individual. "Still stems from patriarchy" might work; that doesn't blame male readers, while still acknowledging that women are screwed over more. To paraphrase Jay, it keeps you in a "what's wrong with society" conversation rather than a "what's wrong with you" conversation.

*I do not mean to say that by using the term "misogyny" you are derailing the conversation; the derailment is something neither person intends, and in my opinion, neither person's fault. You see, because when men hear that term, they see themselves accused of a form of psychological violence against women (whom society still tries to protect) and cannot abide this implied accusation, and their psychological defenses immediately go into "but I can't be a misogynist! I love my wife! A full half my friends are women!" sort of self-justification thought. You didn't derail the convo, they didn't mean to derail the convo, but one tiny little word completely derailed their Thought process.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 10:20 pm (UTC)
caprine: Re: things!

I find the term "kyriarchy" to be useful here, as there are multiple layers and axes of power and privilege under examination. Frex, people of each sex* who act out the "appropriate" gender roles being privileged over those who do not.

*And people who identify as either of the two "appropriate" sexes being privileged over those who identify as neither or both.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 10:38 pm (UTC)
londubh: Re: things!

Kyriarchy eleison?

Edited at 2011-01-19 10:39 pm (UTC)

Fri, Jan. 21st, 2011 05:04 pm (UTC)
caprine: Re: things!


Fri, Jan. 21st, 2011 09:01 pm (UTC)
illicitlearning: Re: things!

thank you for reminding me of this term! i had heard it before but not really absorbed it, i guess, because it's very applicable here. i'll have to include it in the rewrite.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:18 am (UTC)
Greg Churilov: On mysogyny/patriarchy

I think Lon brought up a great point on semantics. This actually opens up discussion of a missing term. Lon well points out that mysoginy is a misnomer for the concept of "women as inferior." His proposed term patriarchy seems closer to the mark but seems a misnomer as well. I propose either "meiogyny" (woman as a lesser thing) or "elattomagyny" (femininity as a defect) to convey the sentiment. Of course, the benefit in both former terms is that they already exist in our parlance.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:44 am (UTC)
londubh: Re: On mysogyny/patriarchy

...and can be pronounced ;)

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:45 am (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Re: On mysogyny/patriarchy

ROFLMAO (pronounced "roffelmaio", btw)

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:26 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Ramblings, is this coherent?

On the whole, I don't agree with your whole "men who are... women who are" list. I would say that on the whole, people of either sex (I refute your use of gender here, because I think that gender roles are derived by physical sex (i.e. the societally perceived sex, not the gender with which people identify themselves) are, by society overall, praised when they take on characteristics of sexes that society perceives as positive, and derided when they take on characteristics of sexes that society perceives as negative. I could take each point, but I will limit myself to two.

First is the children aspect. In general, the ability to like children, in both sexes, is societally considered "good" or "positive." (Think back to politicians kissing babies or answering the cute little first grader's questions during a rally.) Generally, society finds this positive because liking children largely shows a desire to be caring, and to help those who are weaker (children are, on the whole, weaker than adults, whether it be physically, emotionally, or in life experience and maturity), which is something that society believes is good. Our society will view a man who likes children with "surprise and suspicion" (I found your choice of words very interesting and apropos, btw) not because society believes that it is bad for a man to possess this particular characteristic, but because society questions his motives. Society questions whether or not the man genuinely likes children, or if he has ulterior motives and only wants society to believe that he is a better person than he really is. By the same token, Society sees women who dislike children as shirking a positive trait. Society would similarly treat somebody with disbelief and derision if they sloughed aside a positive trait that they had in lieu of one that was worse.

A similar pattern of argumentation applies to things like cooking, doing laundry, etc. All of these are traits that relate to self sufficiency. In general, society will not embrace somebody who is more self sufficient than society expects them to be, take somebody who is extremely rich, or possess other traits that make them, in comparison to others, more self-sufficient than a societal counterpart. Society, as a whole, will instead threat such people with surprise and suspicion, as you put it. Consider somebody who is extremely wealthy, or who managed to found a successful business. As a whole, society tends to treat such people with surprise and suspicion as well. Contrastingly, people who do not meet societal expectations of self sufficiency are perceived as lazy, or as people who are less than what society would like them to be, and thus are treated with disbelief and derision. Of course, this isn't true of people who have visible reasons why they cannot meet these expectations.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:27 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent? They cut my rambling :( 2 of 3

I would also like to address the comment that "society values women less." I'm not sure if I would agree that society values women less, and I largely think that this is a scapegoat statement that people use to justify their not elaborating or taking the time to develop their thoughts on societal views on women. First, it requires that one actually define what a person's "value" is. Many people would argue, and in fact do implicitly argue, that having societal value stems from being able to rise up the societal ladder. Many arguments about female inequality stem from a woman's inability to achieve the same respect and social standing as a man. I would consider this particular assessment fundamentally flawed. A person's value, I would say, is what a particular person is able to contribute to society and how much that contributes to society's functioning as a whole. In that sense, I would say that neither men nor women have greater "value" or are "valued" more or less by society, but in different ways. Yes, men are seen as providers and tend to hold jobs and provide for their families in terms of material resources, but women provide intangible resources. Women do provide an invaluable resource to the household by creating a home. Cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, budgeting, taking care of the household, paying bills, etc. Were all traditionally a woman's role. I'm not arguing that it should be a woman's role, nor am I saying that it society should force women into being in that role, but what I am saying is that that role is no more or less valuable to the functioning of society. There has to be somebody (and yes, one single solitary person) whose role it is to overlook the household if a household is to reach its maximum potential. Thus, I think it is very narrow minded and short sighted to say that the woman's role is unimportant. The "woman's role" (which I put in quotes to refer to the previous role/tasks I have previously delineated) is very important, and I have yet to see a successful relationship in which this particular role was not defined.

Lastly, I comment on your bit about men not being allowed into the woman's sphere. I might be naiive, but I think that men, as a whole, find it more desirable to be within their own sphere because it is simply easier for them, I don't think the woman's sphere is "less" than the man's sphere, but I think it is less desirable. Functioning within a fairly structured, defined work environment, in which one sees direct rewards for ones effort is really much easier than navigating the nebulous home environment in which one puts in (and I know this from person experience) endless effort, and one in which one actually sees fairly little result. Housework is rewarded with more housework, dishes with more dishes, laundry with more laundry, it never ends. It's a lot of effort for little reward, and I think that whether in the past, or in marriages where each member fulfills a traditional role, men respected and valued what women did and conversely, women respected and valued what men did. And in that sense, I think having defined roles was actually good. I sense that people who claim to be "feminists", or "for equality" are the ones who they themselves place stigmas and negative stereotypes on certain social roles. Many a feminists have I heard say that doing housework is beneath them, or that when they cook it's simply a vestige of antiquated gender roles. They're exaggerating in the other direction. In fact, I know plenty of women who like to cook, or clean and do housework. And I similarly know men who enjoy the same things. But I know far more women who like to cook and clean than man who like to cook and clean.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:28 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent? They cut my rambling :( 3 of 3

And I think that this whole rambling at its core addresses the overall issue I have with a lot of "movements" that people have nowadays. I find that more and more people are not focusing on people's ability and right to have agency over their decisions, and instead choose to label particular positions as "weak" and using emotionally loaded language that riles emotions, but doesn't actually lead to progress. Femininity is not "worse" than masculinity, it is different. Masculinity is not "better" than femininity, it too is different. However, I think that masculinity is, however, appears overwhelmingly more sought after than femininity because it is more evident. Masculine roles are ones that tend to be more evident in society, whether it be being aggressive in asking for dates, or holding a job, being publicly successful, etc. Feminine roles are ones that tend to be at home and also tend to be ones that are defined in a relationship. It's much harder to really establish whether or not men are allowed into the feminine sphere, because it's something that isn't as obvious. We can guess, perhaps, but all in all, unless we're actually very close to these men who find their way into a feminine sphere, it's much less likely that we'll know what's really going on.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:43 am (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Ledger: assets vs liabilities

I was thinking that, to the city-state or tribe of yesteryear (and perhaps to today's society as well), the masculine would be viewed as a resource, while the feminine could be viewed as overhead or even a liability.

"The male goes off to fight and conquer - returns with loot.
"The male goes off hunting - returns with provisions.
"The male builds a shelter, slays an enemy, tames a horse.

"The female requires caring for, protecting, guarding.
"The female, in pregnancy, is fragile and requires attention.
"The female, in childbirth, is fragile and may die.
"The offspring of the female is even more fragile, requires even more care.

Also, perhaps:
"Our males can go steal their women;
Their males can come steal our women."

While it is clear that in the above paradigm the female is creating the posterity and guaranteeing the longevity of the tribe (and while it is also clear that much, if not all, of this paradigm is obsolete), I'm just saying that it is easy to see, if any state or tribe were to subscribe to this paradigm, that they would see the male as an immediate asset, the female at best as an investment, at worst as a resource-drain or a liability.

Thus, in this paradigm, if a male were to act in ways feminine, the tribe would view it as a loss of a resource, and potentially added overhead.

Fri, Jan. 21st, 2011 05:09 pm (UTC)
caprine: Re: Ledger: assets vs liabilities

Women's labor at low tech levels more than makes up for the liability of protecting them. They're usually the ones who spin, weave, sew, garden, cook, and preserve food. Clothes and bread may not be as glamorous as loot and horses, but they're pretty important.

Fri, Jan. 21st, 2011 06:06 pm (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Re: Ledger: assets vs liabilities

In principle I agree - in fact, I'd say these are perhaps more immediately vital to the day-to-day functioning of the tribe. I just was speculating about a perceived value, or such.

I was just grasping at straws trying to figure out why our society reacts in such a threatened way when a male gravitates toward female roles.

Sat, Jan. 22nd, 2011 09:08 am (UTC)
caprine: Re: Ledger: assets vs liabilities

Followup note: I have read somewhere, but cannot find a citation online, that in the Middle Ages the scepter of the French queens was shaped like a drop spindle. They took their spinning seriously.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 07:03 pm (UTC)
illicitlearning: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent? They cut my rambling :( 2 of 3

you may note that i never said society values women less. i said that society values traditionally feminine roles less. people really do undervalue the importance of "Cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, budgeting, taking care of the household, paying bills, etc." - this is becoming less the case, but it was definitely seen as less important, less difficult, less impressive than the money-making, tangible-resource-providing work that has traditionally been masculine.

"I don't think the woman's sphere is "less" than the man's sphere, but I think it is less desirable."
this is exactly the problem that i'm talking about. i never claimed it was less important (in fact, i consider it to be quite important, hence my writing this). i AM claiming that people devalue it and consider it undesirable, and that this is a big problem.

"I sense that people who claim to be "feminists", or "for equality" are the ones who they themselves place stigmas and negative stereotypes on certain social roles. Many a feminists have I heard say that doing housework is beneath them"
i would honestly vigorously dispute these claims, but i have no idea how - they're so contrary to my experience that i don't know how to address them. i have NEVER heard a feminist say that cooking is beneath them - i don't know any self-identified feminists who would say that. who said these things and what made you attribute feminism to them? furthermore, that feminists and other people who fight for equality recognize the societally pervasive stigmas and negative stereotypes doesn't mean they espouse them. it's quite the opposite. and by *denying* that such stigmas exist (ie, "i think 'women's work' is important, therefore it is valued by society as a whole") you ignore the issue.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 10:45 pm (UTC)
londubh: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent? They cut my rambling :( 2 of 3

i have NEVER heard a feminist say that cooking is beneath them

I have seen this too. They're self described feminists. There tends to be a lot of overlap with this type of "feminist" and misandrists. They seem to hate both the roles they're "supposed" to play and those they see as assigning them those roles.

Edited at 2011-01-19 10:46 pm (UTC)

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 09:05 am (UTC)
londubh: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

A similar pattern of argumentation applies to things like cooking, doing laundry, etc.

No. You're just wrong here. A man who cooks, does laundry, cleans the house is seen as a rare catch, a splendid specimen of manhood. It is taken for granted that a woman will know how to do those things. In contrast, a man who can't cook, doesn't know how to do laundry, doesn't clean is simply accepted, while a woman who doesn't is seen as a failure, worth less than average.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 09:19 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

I disagree that a man who cooks, does laundry and cleans the house is seen as a rare catch. A man who does that for himself is, as Elena said, regarded with surprise and suspicion, for the same reasons I mentioned with liking children. People do not know what the man's motives are. I agree that a woman who doesn't do these things is below the societal norm for women and these particular qualities. I disagree (as I mentioned later on in my post) with the use of the phrasing "worth less than average," as a) this is again fairly meaningless emotional language and b) there are plenty of women who are completely incapable around the house, but have other qualities that make them just as "valuable."

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 09:40 am (UTC)
londubh: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

Oh, come now. The primary response when a man is shown to know how to cook is pleased surprise, certainly, but the suspicion, if any, is purely linked to his sexuality. "Oh, he's only doing that so he can get girls." Incidentally, this is the same suspicion men are held with if they're affectionate towards children: that they're only doing it for the sex.

I'm running into a huge problem in discussing things with you, though. Specifically, that you're conflating the ideas of "valuable" and "valued." The former is an objective assessment of (potential) contribution. The latter is whether people give a dang. And that is the entire point. A man who does everything, tasks both "male" and "female" is almost universally seen as better than one who only does "man" things, while a woman who does similar is often seen as Less. Sometimes less than if she were to "stay in her place", but almost universally less than the man whose skills she matches perfectly.

On a side note, I find it interesting that you chose to complain about my choice of words with respect to the esteem in which non-cooking women are held, yet completely failed to address the fact that men who don't cook are Not considered with the same sense of, for lack of better term, contempt, despite the same lack of self sufficiency.

Edited at 2011-01-19 09:41 am (UTC)

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 10:01 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

I totally disagree with "any suspicion is linked to his sexuality." If anything, men who do household chores are looked at with suspicion largely because if they can keep a house, it brings into question their ability to be good providers. (See my comment about the time it takes to do these things.) And men who show affection to children are viewed with suspicion for lots of reasons (see my comment about politicians kissing babies).

And a man who does both "male" and "female" things is not necessarily going to be seen as "better" than a man who does only "male" things. You are simply swallowing the specific examples Elena used in her post. However, there are plenty of things that are feminine that if a man did he would be considered irritating/annoying or otherwise obnoxious. (See: being emotional over being logical.) And the converse is also true (See: women being aggressive and hostile.)

And regarding your last comment, I actually disagree that it is the same lack of self sufficiency, at least by societal standards. It has to do with the types of resources each is expected to bring. A man is expected to bring in material resources, and thus is not actually at the same level of insufficiency because he can use those material resources to hire somebody to cook and clean. A woman with the same level of material resources and responsibility as said hypothetical man would not be treated with any more contempt than the man because she couldn't cook. She might be treated with more content because of the career, but then I digress.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 07:48 pm (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

A man who cooks, does laundry, cleans the house is seen as a rare catch...

Yeah, but that's when it's spillover, ABOVE his other manly skills. If that was his core competence or only skill-set, the judgment would be different.

Mon, Jan. 31st, 2011 11:37 pm (UTC)
londubh: Re: Ramblings, is this coherent?

Society questions whether or not the man genuinely likes children, or if he has ulterior motives and only wants society to believe that he is a better person than he really is.

As I've said before, I don't believe that this is the only thing they think when they see a guy who likes children.

That aside, right here you caught an important point: You said that they merely question his sincerity. That presupposes that they Question him, in a way they do Not question a woman who likes children.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 08:32 am (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Some additional comments

Overall the article is very much on-point.

Note on Maternity leaves: In the more progressive companies and states, men now get leave as well.

Note on chivalry: I don't know if this stemmed from an assumption of incompetence or inability. I think it might have stemmed from an assumption of fragility. Split hair, perhaps.

Note on rape: I think one essential point that makes society question male rape is the (mistaken) idea that an erection constitutes consent. Another is the general perception that males crave sex to a much larger extent than women; thus it is more conceivable for a male to rape a female, less so for a female to rape a male.

Note on gender roles: Seems to me that our zeitgeist allows for women on a wide range of femme-butch (tomboy) to get a man - but only Hero-archetype, manly-studly men get the girl. To wit: society now says it's ok for a woman to wear her hair short, wear pants, eschew makeup. Society does NOT say it's ok for a man to wear a dress, wear long hair (except in the 'warrior' archetype), or wear makeup.
A girl, when butch = still a viable girl.
A man, when femme = no longer a viable man?

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 09:33 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Some additional comments

In response to your rape comment. This may just be me, but really, I'm not going to get an erection unless I want to have sex. Period. End of discussion. Even drugs like viagra, cialis, etc. require sexual arousal and stimulation of the part of the brain that controls sexual arousal. And, quite frankly, in my sexual experience, men simply do not get erections completely devoid of sexual arousal. It has nothing to do with wanting sex more or less, it has something to do with perceived agency in the sexual act. A man being anally penetrated by (another man? a woman?) is perfectly accepted as a rape victim.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 09:46 am (UTC)
londubh: Re: Some additional comments

..and here, you seem to be conflating arousal with consent.

I mean, hell, if we're talking physical arousal as consent, that means, by and large, women Can't be raped, because physical response in their case is a evolutionarily encoded safety mechanism in response to Anybody having sex, whether it turns them on psychologically or not.

But more than that, are you going to try to say that fellatio isn't going to stimulate that part of the brain, whether the recipient wants it or not?

Edited at 2011-01-19 09:47 am (UTC)

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 10:28 am (UTC)
rhpsvirgin: Re: Some additional comments

I doubt that even if I drugged you, and you were conscious (if somebody, whether male or female, is drunk or otherwise chemically impaired, and then somebody has sex with them, that person can claim rape simply because they were too impaired to consent) I would be able to get you sexually aroused for penetrative sex (you being the penetrator). This is because you are not sexually attracted to me. Even if I performed fellatio. I know this from personal experience (not with you, of course :!). It may work for a little bit, but by and large is woefully ineffective if you're not horny. And in my experience, if I end up staying hard, it's because I became not just aroused, but also emotionally aroused and interested in the person/having sex. I'm assuming, given all faculties unimpaired, this is true of all guys.

Also, women have more bits and pieces that would imply sexual arousal, more so than pure physical arousal.

Also, the term "rape," I think, is being used loosely. The legal definition of rape/rape with foreign object requires penis-vagina/penis-anus or object-vagina/object-anus penetration. Molestation (which I think is the category under which many of the things we're talking about now) does not require that and it's much more likely that a woman would molest a man. That said (and here, I speak from personal experience dealing with certain girls/women) women are much more cavalier about doing questionable things to men (that men would likely not do to women) simply because they have not been ingrained by society with the same understanding of sexual limits that men are taught from a very early age.

Wed, Jan. 19th, 2011 07:50 pm (UTC)
Greg Churilov: Re: Some additional comments

Arousal || consent.
Would lubricity on a female rape victim ever be perceived as "hell, she wanted it"?

Sat, Jan. 22nd, 2011 09:15 am (UTC)
caprine: Re: Some additional comments

Would lubricity on a female rape victim ever be perceived as "hell, she wanted it"?

Sometimes it is. And sometimes women experience this and blame themselves, primed by a lifetime of slut-shaming and rape culture.