The biological and physiological drive to find companionship and a mate is perhaps as ancient if not more, than the evolutionary flight or fight response, where the hormone adrenaline is released in response. The flight or fight response will in most instances override the cerebral cortex, the section of the brain where logic and rational thought occurs.
On the molecular level, I hypothesise in men in particular, that the visual cortex in response to subliminal visual stimuli detected on a subconscious level the barely perceptible micro signals. The visual stimuli then trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters and endorphins thus engaging various neurotransmitter pathways and resulting in the physiological response to the stimuli.
Certain drugs in particular the SSRI, selective serotonin uptake inhibitor can block these pathways resulting in decreased interest in sex and lack of sexual arousal.
The olfactory sense in humans occurs well and truly below the level of the conscious in detecting the release of pheromones.
Much has been written about the horrendous male gaze in order to demonize men and shame men. Men, perhaps without being consciously aware, when they look at a woman whom they think might be a prospective partner are looking for an invitation that it is safe to approach and they won’t be rebuffed. So there is an evolutionary reason for the male gaze.
So far, no one has mentioned a related conflict. It's over allowing women to go topless in public (partly but not only to breastfeed their infants). If the relation isn't obvious, please bear with me.
Advocates of toplessness argue that men are allowed to go topless, so why not women? The analogy is false, however, because men are definitely not allowed to go bottomless--that is, without trousers or shorts. Men who do so are routinely arrested for "indecent exposure," and no feminist opposes that legal measure. What explains this obvious double standard? I can think of at least two factors.
First, feminists misunderstand the function of clothing. We don't wear clothes merely to keep warm, and we don't discard them merely to stay cool. Nor does clothing merely provide a venue for self-expression or a way of making ourselves attractive. It does those things but also much more. Clothing is a visual language (just as consent is a verbal one). We use it to signal our willing, even necessary, participation in a cultural and communal order, not merely to signal our own personal fantasies or individual identities. Consequently, clothing for both sexes always requires some measure of restraint. That brings me to the second factor.
Feminists misunderstand our need to separate the public and private realms, too, which is not surprising in view of their slogan: The personal is political. In the bad old days of "patriarchy," everyone knew that this was not true. So the same rules of decorum did not apply for either sex to both realms. The streets, buses, subways, stores, offices and factories--even beaches--were, and still are, public spaces. The house or at least the bedroom was, and still is, private space. Reasonable people speak, act and dress accordingly.
Now, back to the argument of this blog. It makes no sense to argue, as most feminists do, that women have some "right" to send mixed signals to men. If women don't want straight men to "objectify" them by examining their bodies, for instance, then should dress and speak accordingly despite beguiling messages from the fashion industry. The double message of "look but don't touch" is not only disrespectful and confusing to men but also dangerous for women. No, this doesn't mean that provocatively dressed or seductively behaved women deserve to be harassed, let alone raped. It does mean that women, like men, live in communities and therefore have social responsibilities. They don't have any "right" to live as they please without considering the consequences for both themselves and others..
Bettina and commentators have already referred more specifically to the new rules of consent, and the double standard on which they depend, so I won't repeat what they've said.
Your comment raises interesting questions. I've never seen stats on the clothing of sexually assaulted women, so I don't know how "most" of them are dressed. Nor have I seen more specific stats on sexually assaulted women in hijab--or who assaults them. I suspect that the assaulters are not Muslim men, who are familiar with the dress codes of Islamic countries and conduct themselves according (at least in those countries). But I could be wrong. If you have published information, please let me know.
“Even if you don’t have a particular experience with being harassed or assaulted, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men.”
This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!
"This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!"
I am a bit slow at times, but I take it that your comment is meant to be sarcasm?
My interpretation is that firstly it is an emotive statement, designed to trigger sympathy, secondly, it is fear-mongering, "be careful or the monster will get you".
As if most men don't have to be alert for dangerous men... on the streets, in certain neighbourhoods. And they are far more likely to be physically attacked than women.
Nina Power author of What Do men want, that was covered in one of her interviews, regardless of how advance our society may become, there will always be dangerous people, most of whom will be men.
I don't disagree with you Phillip. My concern was with the line that "I don't know (of) a single woman who hasn't had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men." It was suggesting of an entire universe of dangerous men, without any supporting research. There are dangerous women too, of which there is emperical evidence. The other concern I had with the comment was her reference to "single women". Was that single descriptor meant to be singular in the broad sense or particular, that is, in non-partnered.
"I don't know (of) a single woman who hasn't had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men." I am confused, where is this statement taken from?
Yes of course, it's not an IKEA Flat Pack. Let me know what you need. And read the original comment posted from that terrified person, who is subject to a daily life facing dangerous males during "they" commute.
The feminist's movement will not "win" because they don't want equality ... they want inequality to keep there movement going. Females will win because they want equality.
This is from a very experienced senior who has coached male and females in a disciplined sport for 52 years.
The feminists have a problem and therefore we should only respond by saying "Your Problem"
I have just become aware of E Belfort Bax and the issues which are being listed today. Existed in the late 1890's and early 1900's. So I don't have much hope for the future, not unless a very large segment of society has an epiphany.
Well, these aren't really society's standards. Most ordinary people, men and women, know this is all ludicrous but the small group of ideologues running our country have managed to impose these dangerous standards into criminal law and now into our schools. And the point I keep stressing is the whole purpose is to get more men convicted of rape. Never forget that.
I dunno, it seems everywhere I look these are the standards that are being put forth. (I'm in the US). And yes, I agree that all this leads to getting more men punished. No question. I wish I could persuade young men to not even go near women, it's too dangerous. But I was young once, and I know how that goes. I'd have more success telling the sun not to shine.
While it is extremely politically incorrect, and I offer Mea Culpa to the easily offended, my sense of male/female relationships over more than half a century of experience and observation, is that women are more likely to seduce men than the other way around.
Yes, of course there are predatory males, but there are more predatory females because that is what females have needed to be to survive and thrive. After thousands of years of evolution females are still hardwired to 'desire' a protector and if they find someone who fits the bill, they will employ all skills, conscious and unconscious to secure the male.
Let us also be realists, men are more physically vulnerable when it comes to sex than are women. This may not always be the case but, since we have still not emerged from a patriarchal age where males were taught to hide, deny, repress their emotions, it seems to me that males are often more dependent, and therefore more vulnerable, in terms of sex because it is the one thing which allows them to feel and express their emotional natures, albeit generally totally unconsciously.
Ironically, given again, thousands of years of evolution, it is far more likely to be females who retain analytical control of their emotions in terms of sexual encounters and relationships.
A woman who sets out to get a man, particularly but not necessarily if she is young and attractive, is more likely to succeed than if roles were reversed. There are valid biological reasons no doubt why so many religions have seen the female and the feminine as the enticer, the lure and source of entrapment, and often destruction of the male.
In the current obsession with 'consent' we see another form of female dominance over males. One would have thought there were enough problems in terms of male/female relationships without emotionally and psychologically castrating our boys and men in new forms.
I wish i had the language to describe what I see that is happening. Basically there are from my perspective I think three issues. The first is that men are expected to approach women who they are interested in, however if they don't approach, nothing will happen unless the guy is extremely attractive, rich or famous. The next issue is that men, suspect that they are suppose to do something, but they don't know what it is? Psychologist Toby Green in her body and soul column wrote about how women are the testers in relationships. A common test is "Let's see if he still finds me attractive?"
Yes, attracting the male gaze is intrinsic to the slut dressing that is going on but what I find offensive is how badly men are treated if they are not part of her target audience i.e. if a man who is too older, too nerdy, too ugly is caught looking she feels entitled to humiliate him.
Maybe a woman who is just "testing her desirability" and has no interest in initiating actual activity should be required to wear a notice "only testing" so that men do not misinterpret her interest? The fact is that men are already ignoring demonstrations of interest because they do not feel like being expelled, dismissed or jailed ( or at LEAST screamed at in public).
I suspect that is happening but it would be most interesting if someone was to actually survey men to see if they are changing their behaviour and ignoring women's signaling.
I can imagine your frustration, Kay. And you were probably right not to report it. No doubt if you had said anything to them you would have been shamed on social media. It is just maddening how women are being given license to behave however they choose whilst men are treading on eggshells.
the biological drive is built into our DNA
The biological and physiological drive to find companionship and a mate is perhaps as ancient if not more, than the evolutionary flight or fight response, where the hormone adrenaline is released in response. The flight or fight response will in most instances override the cerebral cortex, the section of the brain where logic and rational thought occurs.
On the molecular level, I hypothesise in men in particular, that the visual cortex in response to subliminal visual stimuli detected on a subconscious level the barely perceptible micro signals. The visual stimuli then trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters and endorphins thus engaging various neurotransmitter pathways and resulting in the physiological response to the stimuli.
Certain drugs in particular the SSRI, selective serotonin uptake inhibitor can block these pathways resulting in decreased interest in sex and lack of sexual arousal.
The olfactory sense in humans occurs well and truly below the level of the conscious in detecting the release of pheromones.
Much has been written about the horrendous male gaze in order to demonize men and shame men. Men, perhaps without being consciously aware, when they look at a woman whom they think might be a prospective partner are looking for an invitation that it is safe to approach and they won’t be rebuffed. So there is an evolutionary reason for the male gaze.
How would you feel in a room full of women staring at your back ?? Evolutionary???
So far, no one has mentioned a related conflict. It's over allowing women to go topless in public (partly but not only to breastfeed their infants). If the relation isn't obvious, please bear with me.
Advocates of toplessness argue that men are allowed to go topless, so why not women? The analogy is false, however, because men are definitely not allowed to go bottomless--that is, without trousers or shorts. Men who do so are routinely arrested for "indecent exposure," and no feminist opposes that legal measure. What explains this obvious double standard? I can think of at least two factors.
First, feminists misunderstand the function of clothing. We don't wear clothes merely to keep warm, and we don't discard them merely to stay cool. Nor does clothing merely provide a venue for self-expression or a way of making ourselves attractive. It does those things but also much more. Clothing is a visual language (just as consent is a verbal one). We use it to signal our willing, even necessary, participation in a cultural and communal order, not merely to signal our own personal fantasies or individual identities. Consequently, clothing for both sexes always requires some measure of restraint. That brings me to the second factor.
Feminists misunderstand our need to separate the public and private realms, too, which is not surprising in view of their slogan: The personal is political. In the bad old days of "patriarchy," everyone knew that this was not true. So the same rules of decorum did not apply for either sex to both realms. The streets, buses, subways, stores, offices and factories--even beaches--were, and still are, public spaces. The house or at least the bedroom was, and still is, private space. Reasonable people speak, act and dress accordingly.
Now, back to the argument of this blog. It makes no sense to argue, as most feminists do, that women have some "right" to send mixed signals to men. If women don't want straight men to "objectify" them by examining their bodies, for instance, then should dress and speak accordingly despite beguiling messages from the fashion industry. The double message of "look but don't touch" is not only disrespectful and confusing to men but also dangerous for women. No, this doesn't mean that provocatively dressed or seductively behaved women deserve to be harassed, let alone raped. It does mean that women, like men, live in communities and therefore have social responsibilities. They don't have any "right" to live as they please without considering the consequences for both themselves and others..
Bettina and commentators have already referred more specifically to the new rules of consent, and the double standard on which they depend, so I won't repeat what they've said.
Ok ! But most women who are assaulted are those decently dressed . Soo many instances of women in hijab being groped !!!
Your comment raises interesting questions. I've never seen stats on the clothing of sexually assaulted women, so I don't know how "most" of them are dressed. Nor have I seen more specific stats on sexually assaulted women in hijab--or who assaults them. I suspect that the assaulters are not Muslim men, who are familiar with the dress codes of Islamic countries and conduct themselves according (at least in those countries). But I could be wrong. If you have published information, please let me know.
well said!
“Even if you don’t have a particular experience with being harassed or assaulted, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men.”
This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!
"This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!"
I am a bit slow at times, but I take it that your comment is meant to be sarcasm?
My interpretation is that firstly it is an emotive statement, designed to trigger sympathy, secondly, it is fear-mongering, "be careful or the monster will get you".
As if most men don't have to be alert for dangerous men... on the streets, in certain neighbourhoods. And they are far more likely to be physically attacked than women.
That is true.
Nina Power author of What Do men want, that was covered in one of her interviews, regardless of how advance our society may become, there will always be dangerous people, most of whom will be men.
I don't disagree with you Phillip. My concern was with the line that "I don't know (of) a single woman who hasn't had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men." It was suggesting of an entire universe of dangerous men, without any supporting research. There are dangerous women too, of which there is emperical evidence. The other concern I had with the comment was her reference to "single women". Was that single descriptor meant to be singular in the broad sense or particular, that is, in non-partnered.
"I don't know (of) a single woman who hasn't had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men." I am confused, where is this statement taken from?
Are we able to unpack the statement as well?
Yes of course, it's not an IKEA Flat Pack. Let me know what you need. And read the original comment posted from that terrified person, who is subject to a daily life facing dangerous males during "they" commute.
Phillip, I am terrible with IKEA Flat Packs.
The comment from Boonen and others is contained in the link below.
https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/melbourne-university-student-mia-boonen-blasts-unis-response-to-sexual-assault-rates/news-story/f33cb48c4704c9119bbe95697177b1af?from=rss-basic
Flat packs are a pain
The source is unpacked in the final paragraph.
Another issue is what is beginning to emerge about teaching boys about misogyny in schools https://theconversation.com/why-misogyny-needs-to-be-tackled-in-education-from-primary-school-157276
My previous blog covered this in detail... see here https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/the-great-feminist-reset?s=w
I am removing derogatory comments. It is not helpful to start slagging off at women or making racist comments.
The feminist's movement will not "win" because they don't want equality ... they want inequality to keep there movement going. Females will win because they want equality.
This is from a very experienced senior who has coached male and females in a disciplined sport for 52 years.
The feminists have a problem and therefore we should only respond by saying "Your Problem"
or YP
It works
I have just become aware of E Belfort Bax and the issues which are being listed today. Existed in the late 1890's and early 1900's. So I don't have much hope for the future, not unless a very large segment of society has an epiphany.
Not in the criminal courts, unfortunately!
Society expects women to not act responsibly under the influence of alcohol, and thus renders them blameless.
Society expects men to act like perfect gentlemen under the influence of alcohol.
Society has convenient forgetfulness regarding the effect of alcohol on behavior. Society has ridiculous standards and expectations.
Well, these aren't really society's standards. Most ordinary people, men and women, know this is all ludicrous but the small group of ideologues running our country have managed to impose these dangerous standards into criminal law and now into our schools. And the point I keep stressing is the whole purpose is to get more men convicted of rape. Never forget that.
I dunno, it seems everywhere I look these are the standards that are being put forth. (I'm in the US). And yes, I agree that all this leads to getting more men punished. No question. I wish I could persuade young men to not even go near women, it's too dangerous. But I was young once, and I know how that goes. I'd have more success telling the sun not to shine.
While it is extremely politically incorrect, and I offer Mea Culpa to the easily offended, my sense of male/female relationships over more than half a century of experience and observation, is that women are more likely to seduce men than the other way around.
Yes, of course there are predatory males, but there are more predatory females because that is what females have needed to be to survive and thrive. After thousands of years of evolution females are still hardwired to 'desire' a protector and if they find someone who fits the bill, they will employ all skills, conscious and unconscious to secure the male.
Let us also be realists, men are more physically vulnerable when it comes to sex than are women. This may not always be the case but, since we have still not emerged from a patriarchal age where males were taught to hide, deny, repress their emotions, it seems to me that males are often more dependent, and therefore more vulnerable, in terms of sex because it is the one thing which allows them to feel and express their emotional natures, albeit generally totally unconsciously.
Ironically, given again, thousands of years of evolution, it is far more likely to be females who retain analytical control of their emotions in terms of sexual encounters and relationships.
A woman who sets out to get a man, particularly but not necessarily if she is young and attractive, is more likely to succeed than if roles were reversed. There are valid biological reasons no doubt why so many religions have seen the female and the feminine as the enticer, the lure and source of entrapment, and often destruction of the male.
In the current obsession with 'consent' we see another form of female dominance over males. One would have thought there were enough problems in terms of male/female relationships without emotionally and psychologically castrating our boys and men in new forms.
I wish i had the language to describe what I see that is happening. Basically there are from my perspective I think three issues. The first is that men are expected to approach women who they are interested in, however if they don't approach, nothing will happen unless the guy is extremely attractive, rich or famous. The next issue is that men, suspect that they are suppose to do something, but they don't know what it is? Psychologist Toby Green in her body and soul column wrote about how women are the testers in relationships. A common test is "Let's see if he still finds me attractive?"
Yes, attracting the male gaze is intrinsic to the slut dressing that is going on but what I find offensive is how badly men are treated if they are not part of her target audience i.e. if a man who is too older, too nerdy, too ugly is caught looking she feels entitled to humiliate him.
That is about the power to shame and humiliate I think
Maybe a woman who is just "testing her desirability" and has no interest in initiating actual activity should be required to wear a notice "only testing" so that men do not misinterpret her interest? The fact is that men are already ignoring demonstrations of interest because they do not feel like being expelled, dismissed or jailed ( or at LEAST screamed at in public).
I suspect that is happening but it would be most interesting if someone was to actually survey men to see if they are changing their behaviour and ignoring women's signaling.
I have been ignoring all of it since the false #MeToo allegations started.
If nothing else, I've saved a LOT of money as a result!
ME TOOO !!!!!
On a sample of ONE yes :-)
Yes sample. two. I am very slow on the uptake.
I can imagine your frustration, Kay. And you were probably right not to report it. No doubt if you had said anything to them you would have been shamed on social media. It is just maddening how women are being given license to behave however they choose whilst men are treading on eggshells.