What the book convinced me of is that the feminist movement is not going to make any real progress by seeking to grant "equal rights" to the sexes, when the rights granted are those that have previously been granted to men. Why? Because women are different than men! (I'll post more on my newfound philosophy of feminism = humanism at another time; I want to tackle a certain example here.)
Take for instance the Stud v. Whore double standard. We all know how it goes: a man sleeps around and his acts are applauded (at least by other men, if not by women) while a woman sleeps around and she is called promiscuous (by men and women). So often it is said that this is inherently unfair. "Unfair" hardly covers it; this issue goes to the root of our socio-institutional structure.
As a bit of an aside we must now clarify that there are indeed physiological differences between the sexes. Gender differences are not purely imprinted by society; there are biological influences at work in shaping men and women, respectively. This said, we must then cede the fact that certain proclivities occur more often in one sex than the other, and that the inclinations towards certain behaviors are most certainly highlighted through socialization, although the various behaviors which are seemingly prevalent in one or the other of the sexes are most certainly not inclusive to that sex alone. So with that said, let's continue considering the double standard.
Based on the biological differences between the sexes, the investment of a male into the act of procreation vs. that of a female is vastly different. Never ever will a male get pregnant from engaging in sexual intercourse. Only in the past 100 years has reliable, readily accessible birth control become available. Therefore, it was a reality throughout human history that women had a lot more at stake when engaging in sexual intercourse. (And it still is, although birth control has had a profound effect on the situation.) How does this relate to the double standard? Bear with me, please.
Quite simply, its much "easier" for a man to sleep around and not have a whole lot to worry about. Set aside your knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases and the presumption that intercourse does not lead to pregnancy for a moment, because throughout time immemorial these were non-factors. Ever since we figured out that coitus resulted in new people, women have had reason to be much more weary of intercourse then have men. I think that the double standard is nothing but a corollary reflection in our social mores of our actual reproductive situation. As it has always been, women simply couldn't go around having sex as much as men could. Therefore the social standards reflected this reality. (This is partially why I don't believe the women's movement should seek to gain rights previously only granted to men, but as I said I'll post more on that idea later.)
What's interesting to consider is society is going to integrate the advent of birth control and the knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases into the existing social mores.
Thoughts?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Very interesting. This is the second post I've seen on t his book; maybe you were the other poster, I forgot.
It seems very apparent that men and women are not the same thing, aside from the evident humanity of each. Physiology is a good place to start, and from there we can derive much of what we need to shed some light on the differences. It appears, though, that there is more going on in this difference than mere physiology, although it is very difficult to pinpoint. Studies have shown that women's perception tends towards things such as smaller details, things like color and shape of a house, aesthetics, whereas men's perception tends toward the "big picture" or the structural integrity of a house. Now, neither one is probably more important than the other, (depends on whom you are talking to), but they are certainly different and that is a difficult thing to attribute to physiolgy. It appears that there is more going on than simple chemistry.
As for sex, women have, of course, been accused of being "more emotional" than men about it. What exactly this means is another thing which is difficult to pinpoint, because men are emotional too at times and women are, of course, interested in the physical aspects of sex like men are. The generalization, while vested with some degree of truth, probably can't be applied to any one individual. If it is true that women are more details'oriented and that men are more "big picture"-oriented, than the forementioned picture of sex seems obvious. Men are interested in getting in there, and getting the deed done, acheiving the end. Women are more interested in the act itself, the attentiveness to doing it right. This doesn't only apply to sex, I think.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and these things are, as when discussing any huge people group, very large generalizations. The exceptions prove the rule as opposed to disproving it, though. I'm interested to see what you have to say about feminism=humanism.
I did have a previous post about Eve's Seed. Chances are it was that one you read; if there is someone else out there posting about that book on this site I've yet to come across it.
Thanks for reading, and considering with an open mind. The next post is largely in my head, I just need to organize my thoughts and type them.
I do have a comment on your comment:
Men are interested in getting in there, and getting the deed done, acheiving the end. Women are more interested in the act itself, the attentiveness to doing it right. This doesn't only apply to sex, I think.
I see what you're saying about the men/big picture, women/details thing. And this most certainly doesn't only apply to sex. In fact, I'd say that when it comes to sex, its actually switched around. The end that men are usually seeking to achieve when it comes to sex is orgasm. They're not usually considering the larger picture which women have always had to consider: pregnancy and childbirth. In other realms though the generalization may be true enough.
/jkh
I have a few caveats...
When a homosexual male sleeps around, he is seen as promiscuous, not a stud. So it seems that the truly damning issue here isn't who is sleeping around, but with whom you are sleeping.
You brought up the issue of birth control and the difficulty for women to sleep around without worry. This issue is a two-sided coin. There are men out there who want children; however, men do not have the ability to reproduce. So, if a man impregnates a woman, he has no ability to keep the child should she choose to abort it.
I think much of the problem arises from social stigma (e.g., 'boys don't cry') rather than gender inequality. I fashion myself as a masculist, touting the cause of men's rights. Few ever think about the rights, priveleges, or freedoms which men lack.
--Mike
When a homosexual male sleeps around, he is seen as promiscuous, not a stud.
True enough, but homosexual sex brings a whole new variable into the situation. (Don't misinterpret, I'm not saying that homosexual sex doesn't or shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that homosexual sex is almost in a different realm from heterosexual sex, and its not easy to integrate the two realms for the purposes of one discussion.) I do think its interesting to consider the double standard as it relates to homosexual sex. I think that truly it depends on who you ask whether or not a gay male who has lots of sex with lots of guys is considered a stud or a whore. I know more than a few gay men personally, and being labeled as "promiscuous" doesn't carry the same stigma in their day-to-day lives as it does for heterosexual women, which has a lot to do with who they're surrounded by.
And what about lesbians? I don't know as many lesbians personally as I do gay men, so I wonder what the situation with the double standard is among them.
So it seems that the truly damning issue here isn't who is sleeping around, but with whom you are sleeping.
I'd venture to say that its a little of both.
You brought up the issue of birth control and the difficulty for women to sleep around without worry. This issue is a two-sided coin. There are men out there who want children; however, men do not have the ability to reproduce. So, if a man impregnates a woman, he has no ability to keep the child should she choose to abort it.
This is what I'm getting at when I speak of the "basis" of the double standard. The reproductive process for humans is not equally distributed between the sexes. Only fairly recently in terms of human history have we been able to conclusively determine that both sexes do play an equal part in the creation of new life. It remains, however, that once new life has been created, the female bears the responsibility for that new life until its capable of existing in the real world. So what can be done to equalize such a patently unfair situation?
Someone mentioned the idea of a "pre-coital contract" in another post somewhere. I find this to be an intriguing idea, and the situation to which you're referring (where men may wish to have children but presently have no right to stop a women from aborting a pregnancy they contributed to) is precisely where such a pre-coital contract might not be a totally ridiculous idea.
I think much of the problem arises from social stigma (e.g., 'boys don't cry') rather than gender inequality.
Precisely! Society actively (although perhaps subconsciously) seeks to stress sexual differences. Many of the "feminine" and "masculine" traits that members of one sex are supposed to exhibit exclusively are actually common to members of both sexes, even though they may be manifested more often in one sex or another. I think that it is largely due to society that it even happens that some traits are exhibited more often in one or the other sex.
I fashion myself as a masculist, touting the cause of men's rights. Few ever think about the rights, priveleges, or freedoms which men lack.
I think this is closely related to my newfound idea that feminism = humanism. Stay tuned for that post. Much of it is in my head, I just have to organize the thoughts and type them. Meanwhile, I'd be very interested in what rights, privileges and freedoms you see that women have but men lack. You should devote a post to outline the reasons for your masculist persuasion and the causes for which you advocate as a masculist. I'll most certainly read and comment.
/jkh
You should check out the magazing, Bitch Magazine. It labels itself as a feminist response to pop culture, check out, bitchmagazine.com for more details about the magazine.
I'm really glad you brought this to my attention. I think I may read this book. I have been interested in finding out more about humanism, I just never know where to look. You are right, it is a natural occurance for men and woman to look at sex differently. Men see sex as more of a recreational activity, while women see it as a close, personal bonding experience (usually, not always). Therefor, it is less common to see women take sex as lightly as most men, and when we do she is often labeled as a "slut". I agree with you alot. i dont think it is in our best interest to be treated exactly like men. And maybe women shouldnt strive to be able to be accepted as promiscous, like men are. Maybe both sexes should examine their behavior and modify if necessary.