“Gender equality inhibits arousal.”
Yikes. I’m not going to link directly, but Psychology Today, in an article called “Why Feminism Is The Anti-Viagra,” goes even further to prove it will say anything to sell magazines and get clicks.
Really I don’t even know where to start on this one. Here is Jezebel’s response.
18 responses
Why wouldn’t you link to the original article? It reeks of spin to say something is bad, link to other people claiming it’s bad, but actively failing to give other people the chance to decide for themselves without being bombarded by opinions against it. For those interested in forming their own opinion, the article can be found here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts/201104/why-feminism-is-the-anti-viagra
(Note that this is a blog post, not an article from the magazine.)
And accusing a magazine of being willing to “say anything to sell magazines and get clicks” while linking to a Gawker Media site reeks of so much hypocrisy that it’s causing my monitor to quiver.
The Jezebel “response” is a joke, anyway. First of all, it doesn’t even attempt to refute anything with the Psychology Today blog post, it attacks the aesthetics of the post (what was that about judging a book by the cover?) and blatantly misconstrues (or possibly misinterprets) the facts. The blog post does not compare women to characters in “Twilight” fanfic, it refers to the *writers* and *readers* of said fan fiction.
As far as the facts go, the Jezebel post claims the Psychology Today post is “beating a dead horse”. If so, why would anyone consider it “controversial”?
This is a blatant case of blind devotion to a cause where anything that can even potentially be construed as criticizing the cause is bad and must be burned with fire.
Samuel, really?
So here’s their logic: Women have trouble getting turned on more than men. This is because gender equality inhibits arousal. Our evidence? Look at these book covers. Also, look at these rats fucking. Don’t you see? Romance heroes are dominant men, and women read romance novels, therefore women want dominant men. Romances are struggling because the male characters have become less dominant (because all other book forms are doing so well.) As for the rats, we are much more closely related to the bonobo, or the chimp. Why use a rat? Because it proves our point. Also, all people are straight, apparently. Also, look at all the domination porn, which we will define very loosely. How do you explain that? Also, we are “wired with ancient preferences,” which we have “demonstrated,” but we’re not going to say how.
Here’s just a few of many things to think about: even if sexuality is about dominance and submission (which I’m not sure about, but believe me, I’m all for that kind of sex, as long as its consensual), how does that translate to gender equality inhibiting arousal? Women should be paid less because it turns them on? They should be passed over for promotion because “that’s how we’re wired?” All parts of feminism are a turn off? What about queer sex? What about trans people? How does all that fit in? This article sees no difference between Kink.com and the really evil illegal stuff coming out of Eastern Europe. It doesn’t differentiate well between women gaining power in social settings and submissive sexual fantasies. Nor does it even struggle with the fact that there’s not just one kind of feminism, so to say that feminism is an anti-Viagra makes little to no sense.
Also, http://www.thepoliticalnotebook.com/post/4505576563/selling-sexism-as-science
Last I heard, romance novels were the dominant genre in all of publishing. I doubt very much that many people are reading romance novels for their literary merit. If women weren’t aroused by the dominant male perspective, why would they be reading so many novels upon which that is the entire basis?
At what point are the covers being presented as evidence? The article is discussing the content of the novels. It doesn’t even mention the covers, yet anyone attempting to refute the post seems to focus on the included pictures instead of the content.
And yes, I’m sure they used rats because it proved their point, not because rats are the traditional species of animal used for almost all scientific studies.
Why are you bringing up sexual orientation? The post explicitly states that it’s referring to heterosexual women. So I’m not sure where your claim of “all people are straight, apparently” is coming from or how it’s relevant. I’m pretty sure the dom/sub dynamic is present in homosexual relationships as well, though.
You’re “all for that kind of sex, as long as it’s consensual”? I think you have a very skewed view of domination and submission. The post isn’t talking about leather clad men chaining women to the bed and whipping them. There are several levels of dom/sub, many of which are so subtle that the people participating may not even be consciously aware of it.
The entire point of the post is about the fascist insistence on gender equality in absolutely every aspect of life. At no point does the article claim that women should be treated as lesser human beings, that’s just something you’re apparently imagining. What does being sexually submissive have to do with how much a woman gets paid for her job? The post is dealing with one specific aspect of feminism. You’re the one who has decided that it’s attacking the entire movement and are putting words into the author’s mouth to prove your own point.
Also, if “it doesn’t differentiate well between women gaining power in social settings and submissive sexual fantasies” then how do you explain the last paragraph, which begins with “It’s important to distinguish between sexual dominance and submission and social dominance and submission.” and continues on to explain the difference and specify that they’re only referring to sexual dominance and submission?
Okay, you get one more comment from me. I have a rule not to respond to people who use the word “fascistic” in this sense but I’ll make an exception. I’m not quite sure why you’re so offended. You have to understand that when someone says “feminism is the anti-viagra,” that’s saying a lot. When they say, “gender equality inhibits arousal,” they are making a very broad statement. They’re not taking on “one aspect of feminism.” They are taking on all of feminism. That’s taking on the all of feminism as unsexy, as well as tons of queer theory. Which is just plain ignorant of the many different kinds of feminism. It’s also terribly oversimplifying the notion of gender, which is what I meant by the “straight” remark. You may want to read Gender Trouble by Judith Butler if you’re unclear on this point (or read about it. The book itself is kind of a slog.) I’m not “putting words into the author’s mouth,” I’m interpreting the overall effect of the author’s words. This is a different thing.
Take a deep breath. We don’t all have to agree. It’s The Rumpus.
Samuel,
Visual images ARE content. So are the words used to caption those visual images. “Gender equality inhibits arousal” is a sweeping statement that doesn’t distinguish between sexual dominance/submission and social dominance/submission. The images and their captions give the lie to that lazy paragraph at the end that states “it’s important to distinguish between…” because if the publication truly thought it was important to do so, it would have done so at every step of the process instead of covering its ass with words that don’t match its actions.
Now I’ll give you this: Ogi Ogas may have had nothing to do with those captions or images. That BS might entirely belong to Psychology Today. They may have even picked that horrible title that does claim “Feminism is the Anti-Viagra”. Not just one specific aspect of feminism. Feminism. The great body of feminism.
But then even as I offer this to you, 1) it still puts Psychology Today at squarely “sensational” rather than scientific and 2) there are still valid complaints about what you are calling with blind devotion the “content” of the article. Here’s one that hasn’t been mentioned: science and the language it uses to describe what it observes is still steeped in sexism. Why, for example, do scientists label the female rat’s behavior as “submissive” when she actually initiates the encounter by “inducing a male to chase her”? The truth of the matter is, even these submissive/dominant labels are a product of culture and not nature, so applying our culturally-loaded language to animal behavior and then using that language to prove that a cultural status-quo is “natural” brings us full circle to a tautology. I’m not saying that the body of scientific observation is not valuable, but its conclusions are suspect and require the highest levels of scrutiny when it is used to assert cultural stereotypes, especially in such sweeping terms.
And by the way, I’m curious what specific aspect of feminism you’re referring to? Anything from the past 10 years? As a sex-positive feminist, I am not offended at the idea that women might be turned on by fantasies of dominance. I’m offended that the entire conversation is framed as if it is antithetical to feminism. There are feminist ways to embrace some of the data and observations Dr. Ogas presents. But Psychology Today and perhaps even Ogas chose to use the observations as an attack on feminism, which is offensive.
Lisa
Ah, see, there’s the crux of our disagreement. You’re criticizing the title, generalized statement of purpose, and the pictures, while I’m referring to the content of the post itself. The post makes it very clear that they’re referring only to sexual dominance & submission and that social dominance and submission is a completely different thing.
So yes, when the author explicitly states that he’s not referring to social roles and then you accuse him of believing that women should be paid less than men, you are, in fact, putting words in the author’s mouth.
I will concede that the title is sensational and the pictures are superfluous. But to claim that the author is taking on “all aspects of feminism” is patently ignoring what the author is saying. You’re picking and choosing your evidence in the exact same manner as you’re accusing the author of doing.
And how is it not fascistic to insist that something is above criticism and to attack an article because it disagrees with one tiny portion of an overall concept? I’m not using “fascist” as a random, stock insult. I’m using it because the situation I was describing fits the dictionary definition of the term.
Well, I can say that any healthy relationship has a healthy switching of dominance and submission – not just in the bedroom. Do I need to quantify that with an “I think”, or is my opinion strong enough to stand on it’s own without everyone jumping all over it? Think of it as a dance… sometimes you follow, sometimes you lead – and as the girl, sometimes you lead backward because let’s face it, we need to find the right dance partner.
Recently there was an article posted by abc.com that highlighted the fact there THE first all-women’s airforce team has been put together and is fighting to protect and serve our country (you’ll have to google it or check my fb page for it. I just want to write this response; you do the research). My response matched many others… WHY is this news? WHY is this just happening now?? If women’s issues were truly being addressed, we would not need to have separate groups, but integrated groups. Even in the workforce. The fact is, women’s voices and ideas are not being respected. There is an increase of women’s rhetoric in backlash to all the political stances that have been prevalent in the U.S. since January. Again, do I need to say “I think” and “I believe”? Or, can I just say my piece?
Further, I’m sure there are men out there who understand women and women’s sexuality. With my own words, let me tell you why I have a difficult time getting off with a guy (solo projects go just fine). I’ll go out on a date or casual hangout, and the guy, whether he is younger, my age or older, will drink too much. Eventually and early in the night, we’ll go back to someone’s house. Now, here’s a specific example, but keep in mind that there are variations to this, but it’s all the same idea. I step out to get some tea, use the restroom, put my bag & coat down, or whatever. I come back into the room, and there he is; sitting on the couch, pants down, holding his erection, big smile. The conversation goes something like, hey, isn’t this impressive? Don’t you want some of this? Um, no. And, my hesitation is not so much about thinking it over as it is trying to figure out where the exit is, and how to leave without pissing this idiot off to the point where he comes at me. Yes, even the wealthy business guys who seem so nice, who you have friends in common with feel like they can push you into a kiss, and when you’re obviously not interested will try to pick you up and throw you on the bed. Really? You want to TRY this with me? Is it a wonder that I stopped going out anywhere with any guy? What’s missing here? A natural progression. Respect for me, our interaction, and basic knowledge of boundaries. Anyone who has ever met me will not doubt for a second that “I” did nothing to encourage this behavior except breathe. I don’t drink; I don’t do drugs; I don’t dress slutty. I am direct. I am kind. I like all kinds of people. I talk. I don’t know what kind of girls this act works on. If a guy is a dumbass, he’s not getting anywhere with me… Thus, yeah, lots of Sat nights on my own. My choice, and I don’t think anyone would blame me. I choose.
IF, IF, IF I find a guy who deserves my personal time, I will teach him how to pull my hair, or whatever else he needs to be coached on. What we do or say in bed is completely separate from how we treat each other in other types of interactions. But, it is give and take; it is domination and submission. As it should be.
Dear Samuel, Seth and other responders,
I don’t want to discourage you from the conversation you are engaged in. We are all at different levels and stages of our development in our areas of interest. There is no clear cut prescriptive stance to take here; it is all very individual. It is an ongoing dialog. Unfortunately, because there is not a one size fits all answer here, women’s points of view in the bedroom and in the workforce are often not addressed. With awareness, a first step is taken toward understanding. I hear your ideas, and you’re not entirely wrong, but neither is anyone else here. Again, this is an on going dialog that will continue to evolve as our culture changes. It is important to keep bringing these issues up. And, it’s great to see such passion… I’m suggesting we are less able to listen and absorb more ideas and further understand our own when we are so busy fending off each other.
I am suggesting that this discussion is vastly different from the visions and definitions of equity between Conservatives and Liberals. Those discussions involve laws of female conduct in society vs. choices of female conduct in society.
Right or wrong, there is an increase of rhetoric focusing on women. What affects one gender, will always have an affect on the other gender. So, regarding feminism, I don’t think we’re all fighting here. Regarding the article… we are in a fast-pace society right now. This can’t be the first time you’ve noticed this change in the news? Provocative. Half-truths. Flat/one-dimensional. Titled to grab our attention. Every bit of news is a piece of a larger puzzle – not the end all, be all of an isolated topic.
You KNOW that.
Thank you Seth, for marching out this horrendous article “Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra.” Your insights are astute. Unfortunately, the author is making the un-PC splash he craved, and well, I’m wet, enraged and want to kick him in the balls. Only, I suspect it may turn him on, so I’ll refrain. Instead, I’ll choose the most ludicrous assertions he made and attempt to dismantle them:
#1:Twice as many women are having trouble getting turned on.
Where is he getting his information and how many women is he talking about? There are more sex toys than ever dedicated to women’s orgasms and more literature than ever available to them. One example is “The Extended Massive Orgasm,” By Steve and Vera Bodansky, PHD’s. Culturally, I believe there is more communication than ever about sex and desire. Where are these women? Can he give them my phone number? I’d be happy to help them out.
#2:This lack of turn on (for women) has something to do with Feminism and our PC heros:
The only part feminism has to play in rape fantasies is that it adds texture to the psychological fun. I know plenty of women who liked to be spanked and restrained who consider themselves to be feminists. The author’s claim is ridiculous. Desire is complex and so is feminism. Our lizard brains are wired for a lot of things like recoiling from fire. Feminism is not to blame for this. The authors unimaginative, unexplored, arrested juvenile ideas about human sexuality (and Rat sexuality?) is to blame for my lack of turn on.
People are complex creatures with layered desires. We are more akin to Lobsters who have very complex sex lives.
#3: Women want a dominant alpha male to provide and to rape her:
Really? Who is this ding-dong? How the hell does he know what women want? Where is he getting his information? Romance Novels? Fantasy is Fantasy. Anyone in a decent relationship will tell their lover what turns them on, what kind of porn they like, if they want to be spanked or do the spanking, if they want to be electrocuted or if they need to wear a raccoon suit and drive a garbage truck in order to get off.
The author of the article is in dire need of a miry dick blow job. While tied up. And smeared with jam.
Moby, I meant.
Does it occur to anyone that the reason that supposedly twice as many women are having trouble getting turned on is potentially from the idea that more and more women are done faking it…finally?
I have noticed a stronger push for women to learn about their bodies and actually know what turns them on. For so long the focus has been all about pleasing the men and less about actual female pleasure and orgasm.
I think what women are missing isn’t the alpha transgressor male but the informed, skilled, patient and willing male.
Yeah, and sometimes that possibly includes having the man be an aggressive rat.
I always rely on communication with my partners (and they remain my partners only if they are capable of this)as feministy as that must be.
In the end I cant take this guy fucking seriously about sex no matter what>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLrbBj_LFW0
Who is this ding-dong, indeed:
http://fanlore.org/wiki/SurveyFail
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/who_wants_to_be_a_cognitive_neuroscientist_millionaire/
Good at gameshows. A failure at researching women’s desires.
Apparently everyone is reading a completely different article than the one I’ve read. At what point does the author say anything about women wanting to be raped? There’s a very, very wide line between “being submissive” and “wanting to be raped”. I would think Rumpus readers would be aware of this, but these comments seem to indicate a closer kin to Republican Congressmen at an obscenity trial than anything resembling sexual liberation.
And really, Antonia? You think the abundant availability of sex toys suggests that women *aren’t* having trouble getting turned on? That’s like suggesting that the abundant availability of dietary supplements means that people aren’t having weight issues.
i think everyone read a different article or at least didn’t read far enough to see:
“If you suspect this is some kind of stealth agenda for justifying belligerent or misogynistic male behavior, read on, for there is a fascinating neural caveat.”
i do agree they could have picked a better title, so people didn’t interpret arguments that don’t exist in the original piece. (often these publications have final say over the title though.)
So, I need to let this go, as I don’t think we’re ever going to agree. But these caveats, while better than nothing, seem to be an afterthought to an article that is, at best, an attempt to make irresponsible extrapolations from questionable science and is, at worst, well, remarkably tone deaf to how gender works at all. First, there seems to be a huge correlation-causation problem here that’s never dealt with adequately. I’d like to read the studies they allude to but never cite about these “neural pathways,” to which I mean those “ancient sexual preferences” (which is clearly a throwback to an understanding of gender that has been disproved in both the hard and soft sciences, and I can’t imagine that phrasing would ever be used in a peer-reviewed journal) to try to see how they dealt with how that little thing called culture might shape our sexuality instead of our internal wiring.
But really, the reason this is bad science is simple: it’s unclear what, exactly, the hypothesis is, so it’s impossible for me, as a skeptic, to construct a null hypothesis. The goalposts are always moving. Are they saying that feminism is bad for sex? Because that’s what the title says. Is their hypothesis, which is in bold at the top of the article, that “gender equality inhibits arousal.” Because in that case, they are very unclear about what gender equality is. Does it mean sex where both people are standing up at exactly the same angle? Because that’s all I can tell, and I agree that this sounds not fun and possibly a little uncomfortable. Or is their hypothesis this thing about neural pathways? Because to jump from that to talking about romance novels and the proliferation of domination porn definitely lends itself to critique for a correlation/causation error. It’s got Type 1 Error written ALL over it.
And all science aside, this writing is AWFUL, especially for science. Everything is said unequivocally, and then all the complications to these sweeping statement swept under the rug in a footnote (which, by the way, I think, though I’m not positive, was added after I first read the post.) How is this article doing anything positive for the world? How is it not, considering that most people only read the first part of online articles, doing a disservice to women and the gender relations in general? Scientists generally start with the caveats. It’s part of the responsibility of being a scientist. They don’t add them at the end when they take heat for something.
Really, I’m not quite sure why there’s so much of a desire to defend this article. It really is terrible. There’s a few wars on, and more important battles to fight, people.
“Really, I’m not quite sure why there’s so much of a desire to defend this article. It really is terrible. There’s a few wars on, and more important battles to fight, people”
right, blame us, instead of the poor style exercised in your original disagreement that can be arguably just as terrible as the article.
maybe you’re not sure why there’s ‘so much of a desire to defend this article’ because no one actually has that desire. the motivation is more from a desire for honest criticism and open discussion. the motivation is not seeing rumpus used as a soapbox for PC-brow-beating to silence discourse on certain topics that might explore ideas we find questionable.
more important battles? a few wars on? aren’t you OP? you realize how hypocritical this comes across?
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.