My philosophy class discussed Erin Anderson's article from Friday's Globe and Mail, and it provoked a whole gamut of topics. I'll try to encapsulate some of them here. The article starts with an important question:
"The question left is whether we'll waste this moment, leaving the teenagers today to have the same conversation decades from now. It's time to talk about solutions - in the courts, on the Internet and in our schools."
The article calls for better sex ed in the high schools. I agree, but what Anderson fails to realize is that, while Ontario students must take one Health and Physical Education credit to graduate, they can take it in any grade. They don't all have to take the grade 9 health curriculum that focuses on sex ed. And there were many stories from my class of some of the fear-inducing or just plain silly lessons from middle school health classes. Sex ed must be improved dramatically to include "consent training" and "bystander training," as the article points out, but I think that has to happen outside of health class as well. It must be part of mandatory courses, and I think it's particularly suited to fit randomly throughout English and civics courses.
Luckily, new curriculum documents (I believe for all courses) have or will have "front pages" - a reference to the preamble before the actual essential course learnings - that demand a focus on environmental education, healthy relationships, equity and inclusive education, and financial literacy as it applies to the subject area. History got a curricular make-over just this past year, and the new Social Science blurb (p 41) on healthy relationships sounds pretty good:
"Healthy relationships are based on respect, caring, empathy, trust, and dignity, and thrive in an environment in which diversity is honoured and accepted. Healthy relationships do not tolerate abusive, controlling, violent, bullying/harassing, or other inappropriate behaviours."This is or will be an actual part of every course now which is much more effective than forcing it into a few weeks of one course. In teachers' college, we had a week of equity and inclusion studies that many deemed "pink week," and ridiculed it as such. When I taught Careers, I tossed in an article about sexual harassment in the workplace in the middle of discussing employee dynamics, with no discernible backlash from students. If we can sneak this type of education in throughout all our courses, it could actually foster a cultural shift. I'm ever optimistic!
But, of course, we have to make sure it's addressed well.
CONSENT IS A RED HERRING
But one problem I have with Anderson's article, is the way it frames the issue of sexual assault as a matter of innocently misunderstood signals. Yes, that happens here and there as we continue to see the rape myth perpetuated in films enough that some might still think resistance is part of the mating dance. But I think it can often be an excuse for behaviour - "It was all just an honest mistake!" - and part of a larger issue of a lack of respect for women in general. The fact that the article started with a discussion about Jian Ghomeshi makes it curious that it went down the "consent training" road. From all reports, it's pretty clear that JG didn't misunderstand the signals he was getting. He just wanted to hurt some women.
And, skirting an uncomfortable issue but no less relevant to my argument, my students got into a good analysis of the double standard. "Men can have many partners and be cool, but women can't." "Even if guys are okay with a girl who's slept around, girls like that have to deal with the consequences that no guy will actually date her."
Still. In 2014.
Of course no discussion on this topic is complete without the requisite Breakfast Club double-edged sword speech:
My questions, as always, is "Why?" Why does that happen? What cultural forces maintain that dichotomy that hasn't budged since I was in high school in the early 80s. I watched all sorts of gains made in racial issues and LGBTQ issues, but this one hasn't moved. Do we want it to continue for some reason? Who's benefitting from it? Why won't it die??
Some said it's part of nature. I guess since women have children, we have to protect them from being tainted with bad seed. Many philosophers over the centuries have written about the importance of knowing for sure that a wife's children are actually her husband's, so a chaste woman is necessary to ensure proper lineage.
Almost 200 years ago, Schopenhauer said it's natural for men to be okay with multiple partners. Their will to live is satisfied by the possession of love - i.e. sex - regardless whether or not the desire is shared by the woman:
“But yet that in every case of falling in love, … the essential matter is not the reciprocation of love, but possession, i.e., the physical enjoyment. The certainty of the former can therefore by no means console us for the want of the latter; on the contrary, in such a situation many a man has shot himself. On the other hand, persons [i.e. men] who are deeply in love, and can obtain no return of it, are contented with possession, i.e., with the physical enjoyment. This is proved by all forced marriages, and also by the frequent purchase of the favor of a woman, in spite of her dislike, by large presents and other sacrifices, nay, even by cases of rape.”And, he continues, women are biologically determined to want love more than sex so they, and their children, can live securely.
Nowadays many of us call that essentialism and believe we are more than our biological or evolutionary mechanisms. Our brains are more complex and efficiently designed than most of the other animals with segregated gender roles. And, since we have birth control and DNA testing, how much does it matter if women have a variety of partners? So why is this still maintained so vociferously?
There's another bit of biology that came up though - that the act of penetrating is different than being penetrated. That women are a vessel that contains men's semen. If she's been with 50 men, then she'll be "loose." I countered that women give birth and bounce right back, but I should have argued that she could be with one man 50 times and not raise the same concerns. It's the "kill count" that matters. It's the image of the hot dogs down the hallway, the jizz bucket, sloppy seconds, damaged goods - as if sexually active women don't bathe and sex destroys their genitals - but only if it's with many men. They can be tainted in a way that men can't because men leave something behind, deep inside, that seems to leave a lasting mark - forever.
But the vagina cleans itself out, kids. Regularly. Geez!
I can't scoff too much because I remember being in grade 12, just when AIDS was first discussed, and, because it seemed relegated to gay men and prostitutes, my group of friends surmised that if one man's sperm touches another man's sperm it's actually fatal! That's why sex education is so important.
But their imagery paints a picture that can be hard to shake.
ETA - And four classes later, someone raised the "vaginal looseness" argument AGAIN, so I was able to discuss the 50 times vs 50 people argument after all (and reiterate that they really need better sex ed classes). But another argument was added to the fray:
"If a woman's vagina couldn't go back, then the tampon industry would go under because sexually active women's tampons would be falling out all over the place. So if a woman's vagina can accommodate a tampon, it's likely small enough for your needs."Whatever works to get the point across.
It's all because of religion. Like the biology explanation, I think this is too simplistic. And there were myriad sexual restrictions long before the Christians ruined all the fun.
The Code of Hammurabi - written centuries before Genesis - states:
142. If a woman wishes to divorce her husband and refuses him sexual rights, an inquiry shall be held. If she has not committed adultery but her husband has, she may take her dowry and return to her father's house. 143. If she has committed adultery, then she shall be executed by being thrown into the water.....154. If a free man has sexual relations with his daughter, that man shall be exiled....159. If the first wife and a female slave of a free man both bear him sons, and the father acknowledges the sons of the female slave as his own, then the sons of the female slave shall share equally with the sons of the first wife in the paternal inheritance after the death of the father....171. If the father did not acknowledge the sons of the female slave as his own, then the sons have no right to share in the paternal inheritance; but both the female slave and her sons shall be given their freedom.Sexual restrictions are part of society to maintain social order. Sometimes they're officially legislated, but it's an easier time to keep order if they're part of the social fabric. It can cause conflicts if we all sleep with anyone without respect for who's bothered by our shenanigans. So my beginning position is that there is an order that is somewhat maintained by the sexual double standard. Maybe if we can get to the perceived necessity for the structure, we can dismantle the attitudes.
We ran out of time before I could postulate my own theories, but I think it's mainly about control.
If sexually confident women - or even just attractive women - are sluts, then it reduces the competition for nice hetero girls. So girls definitely benefit from reinforcing the dichotomy even if it's to their own detriment later. It can be a means for girls to keep other girls from their guy by labelling them as diseased so that they become less attractive to their potential mate and even shameful to be seen with. The solution to this dynamic is to recognize the abundance of potential mates available. We don't need to complete with each other. If she likes him, and he likes her back, let him go. There are plenty to go around.
But I think for men the dynamic is perpetuated because many guys still like the upper hand in a relationship. Not nearly all, of course. There are confident men who can be with an experienced woman, but some really can't. Like Silent Bob explains in Chasing Amy:
Personally, if a man has kept himself chaste and demands the same of a woman, I can respect that. But if a man has seen some action, or tried to, and has a different standard for the women he dates, then I really can't tolerate that hypocrisy.
As I said in a previous post, saying no can precipitate retaliation of the weirdest sort. I once turned down a guy just on a date to a movie, and he denigrated me to his friends mercilessly. And it was just a movie, AND I was in a relationship at the time. Some people don't take rejection well. It's not the problem of the nay sayer, but that retaliation, unfortunately, is something women sometimes have to cope with. So some girls say yes when they don't want to. And then they're ruined in the eyes of the Silent Bobs of the world. But some girls want to say yes because they want to. And that should be okay.
Here's the dynamic I think's at play:
Last summer I went on a date with a guy who I discovered, part way through the meal, loves Stephen Harper. He challenged me to say one bad thing about him. I listed a medley of dismantled environmental laws and regulations that are permanently destructive to Canada, not to mention the stranglehold he has on scientists. But, I think separate from his politics, this guy's response was very interesting:
"Yes but, you can't talk about that because I don't know anything about the environment. It's not fair because you're an environmentalist, and that's not my field."So... let's get this straight. I shouldn't discuss any piece of knowledge I have that a man doesn't have during a debate? This man anyway.
But it's not just this one guy. I've seen that same type of response here and there in other relationships over the years. An early boyfriend whined that I'm so much more worldly than he because I lived in Ottawa for a year - Ottawa - so we just don't fit. And a male friend insisted I didn't influence his musical tastes even though he hadn't heard of Ween or Primus before he met me and now is a rabid follower of both. It feels to me like it couldn't be possible for him to have been influenced musically by a woman. I could be wrong on this, of course, but it feels like a significant behaviour - a dynamic primarily between two sexes.
There's an insecurity there. A fear. And it hinges on what real men do and don't do. Real men don't learn things from women, and part of that means that they should be the most experienced in the bedroom. And the underlying current here, is that women don't have the status to teach, to know, to have seen more things - and they won't be respected if they have. This likely ties in with the reality that smart, successful women are often single:
A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic. Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable.My sense is that until we can address this behaviour and belief system, we're going to be stuck with the double standard and with the sexual assaults. It's all part and parcel of the same mentality: This woman isn't really worth anything, so I can use her as a sex toy, as a punching bag, as a maid, as a nanny for my kids....
But then there's this guy, Terry Crews on Manhood, Feminism, and the Mindset that Leads to Rape:
"People are scared of being controlled....Feminism is not saying women are better than men....We're talking about... true gender equality. But the problem is that men have always felt that they're more valuable....I have been that guy....Men have been manipulated to chase their win....You have to know you're already valuable."People are getting their sense of value from their conquests, from their stuff, from their trophies, instead of from within. Some men have a sense of entitlement over women and see women as a trophy that they deserve, whether she likes him or not. And, I think, part of that includes wanting to be the only man the woman has ever known. Crews says, "Never should that ever be accepted."
He suggests that men have to step up the join the battle against the patriarchal mindset that damages everyone:
"I relate it to...civil rights....Let's say the people who were silent....and the black school with two books, and the white school had everything, and you were quiet. You were accepting it. Same thing with men right now. You're not saying anything, you are, by your silence, accepting it....
The big thing for me is just that when you see another person as your equal there are things you just won't do....You would only go ahead when someone says no unless you feel you own them, you're above them....you feel they're your property....
We're not battling people, we're battling a mindset....It's like cutting a tree down by the leaves, it just grows back....nobody's getting at the stump. The stump is the mindset that people feel they're more valuable than one another.....You think you're better than everybody. The issue is every man wants intimacy....all intimacy is [that] you want to be known...and loved....Sex comes later. The problem is people are chasing sex to chase intimacy, and you'll never be satisfied."Men are weaker, more fragile, more vulnerable than they feel they could ever admit. De Beauvoir discussed this at length almost 70 years ago. Hiding that fragility is a huge burden to maintain. Crews says, "Admit you don't have it....Keep a moment where that pride is out of here." And maybe we can stop the competitions, and begin to see one another with respect, on an even plane, as actual equals.
BUT WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE A LOT
The only discussion I cut off during the class was this one. Like the evolution vs creation debate, and the climate change vs natural fluctuations debate, saying some women lie to ruin men's lives doesn't rate an equal billing with some women get raped. 'Nough said.